OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Saturday, 22 March 1997
The Council met at half-past Nine o'clock
MEMBERS PRESENT:
THE PRESIDENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS RITA FAN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE WONG SIU-YEE
THE HONOURABLE JAMES TIEN PEI-CHUN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE DAVID CHU YU-LIN
THE HONOURABLE HO SAI-CHU, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE EDWARD HO SING-TIN, J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE RAYMOND HO CHUNG-TAI, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE NG LEUNG-SING
PROF THE HONOURABLE NG CHING-FAI
THE HONOURABLE ERIC LI KA-CHEUNG, J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE DAVID LI KWOK-PO, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE LEE KAI-MING
THE HONOURABLE ALLEN LEE, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MRS ELSIE TU
THE HONOURABLE MRS SELINA CHOW, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MRS PEGGY LAM, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE HENRY WU
THE HONOURABLE NGAI SHIU-KIT, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE RONALD ARCULLI, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE YUEN MO
THE HONOURABLE MA FUNG-KWOK
THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG HON-CHUNG
DR THE HONOURABLE MRS TSO WONG MAN-YIN
THE HONOURABLE LEUNG CHUN-YING, J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE LEONG CHE-HUNG, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MRS SOPHIE LEUNG LAU YAU-FAN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MOK YING-FAN
THE HONOURABLE HUI YIN-FAT, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHOI-HI
THE HONOURABLE CHAN YUEN-HAN
THE HONOURABLE CHAN WING-CHAN
THE HONOURABLE CHAN KAM-LAM
THE HONOURABLE TSANG YOK-SING
THE HONOURABLE CHENG KAI-NAM
THE HONOURABLE FREDERICK FUNG KIN-KEE
THE HONOURABLE ANDREW WONG WANG-FAT, J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE PHILIP WONG YU-HONG
THE HONOURABLE KENNEDY WONG YING-HO
THE HONOURABLE HOWARD YOUNG, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE YEUNG YIU-CHUNG
THE HONOURABLE IP KWOK-HIM
THE HONOURABLE CHIM PUI-CHUNG
THE HONOURABLE BRUCE LIU SING-LEE
THE HONOURABLE LAU KONG-WAH
THE HONOURABLE LAU WONG-FAT, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MRS MIRIAM LAU KIN-YEE, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE AMBROSE LAU HON-CHUEN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHOY KAN-PUI, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE PAUL CHENG MING-FUN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHENG YIU-TONG
DR THE HONOURABLE TANG SIU-TONG, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE TIMOTHY FOK TSUN-TING
THE HONOURABLE KAN FOOK-YEE
THE HONOURABLE NGAN KAM-CHUEN
THE HONOURABLE LO SUK-CHING
DR THE HONOURABLE LAW CHEUNG-KWOK
THE HONOURABLE MARIA TAM WAI-CHU, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE TAM YIU-CHUNG, J.P.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
THE HONOURABLE HENRY TANG YING-YEN, J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE CHARLES YEUNG CHUN-KAM
CLERK IN ATTENDANCE:
MS PAULINE NG MAN-WAH
CLERK TO THE PROVISIONAL LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
ANNOUNCEMENT
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Good morning, Honourable Members. As this Council has not yet formally endorsed the Rules of Procedure, Item I, "Paper", and the first five motions under Item II of the meeting today will be conducted in the following manner:
(1) The quorum for the meeting shall be one-half of the Members of the Council, that is, 30 persons.
(2) Members can speak in Cantonese, Putonghua or English.
(3) Members will be allowed to raise short questions for the purpose of elucidating matters in relation to the report to be presented by Mrs Selina CHOW under Item I but no debate will be allowed. Members wishing to speak should indicate their intention by a show of hands.
(4) In respect of the motions under Item II, Members can seek elucidation or express their opinions. In the event that Members seek elucidation, the mover of the motion can give an explanation immediately. In the event that Members express their opinions, the mover of the motion can reply after all Members have spoken and before the question on the motion is put to the Council for its decision.
Each Member shall not speak more than once on each question except the mover of the relevant motion.
Each Member shall not speak in excess of 15 minutes. As the time for the meeting is limited, Members are requested to speak as concisely as possible.
(5) All voting will be conducted by voice votes. I will first call upon those Members who are in favour of the question to say "Aye" and then call upon those who are against the question to say "No". After collecting the voices of the Ayes and of the Noes, I will judge whether the Ayes have it or the Noes have it. If Members raise no queries, I will declare the question to have been so decided.
Should a Member think that there is a need for a division, he is requested to claim for a division by a show of hand before the result of the voice vote is announced. I will proceed to a vote three minutes after the announcement for a division is made:
(a) Firstly, I will call upon those Members who are in favour of the question to raise their hands. After the Clerk has recorded the votes, I will then read out the names and the number of the relevant Members;
(b) Secondly, I will call upon those Members who are against the question to raise their hands. After the Clerk has recorded the votes, I will read out the names and the number of the relevant Members;
(c) Lastly, I will call upon those Members who abstain from voting to raise their hands. After the Clerk has recorded the votes, I will read out the names and the number of the relevant Members.
If Members raise no queries, I will announce the result of the division.
All questions shall be decided by a majority of the votes of the Members present and voting. If the votes are equally divided, I shall have a casting vote.
PAPER
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Let us refer to the paper. Mrs Selina CHOW will present the Progress Report by the Working Group on Rules of Procedure for the period from 23 February to 21 March 1997. Mrs Selina CHOW.
MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): Madam President, I now present the Progress Report by the Working Group on Rules of Procedure for the period from 23 February to 21 March 1997 on behalf of the Working Group on Rules of Procedure (the Working Group) for the Council's perusal.
The Working Group was formed by the Provisional Legislative Council (PLC) at its meeting on 22 February and was authorized to draft its terms of reference and the rules of procedure of the PLC. Since then, the Working Group has met five times to draft its terms of reference and the rules of procedure of the PLC.
In the course of revising its own terms of reference, the Working Group made reference to Members' views expressed at the Council's previous meeting as well as the format of the terms of reference of the Working Group on Administrative Matters. The draft of the revised terms of reference has been circulated to Members for consideration in the hope that it can be formally adopted by the Council.
Before drafting the rules of procedure of the PLC, the Working Group has placed special emphasis on the following issues:
(1) What form of legislative procedure should be adopted for enabling essential legislation to become effective and operative on 1 July 1997 (1 July) on the establishment of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR)?
(2) Do Members enjoy immunity to legal proceedings for expressing freely at meetings of the PLC?
(3) What restrictions should be imposed on Members' motions and amendments?
(4) The committee system of the PLC.
Firstly, what form of legislative procedure should be adopted so that essential legislation could become effective and operative on 1 July on the establishment of the SAR? The Working Group has explored the form of legislative procedure that the PLC should adopt before 1 July to enable essential legislation to become effective and operative on the day when the SAR is established.
The Working Group has studied in detail the resolutions passed by the Preparatory Committee on 24 March 1996 and 1 February 1997, namely:
(1) the seven functions of the PLC as decided by the Preparatory Committee;
(2) the Chief Executive has the authority, before 1 July, to draft bills and introduce to the Council for scrutiny;
(3) the PLC has the authority to legislate before 1 July and confirm the bills passed upon the establishment of the SAR, and should report them to the Chief Executive for signature, promulgation and implementation.
The Working Group also noted that before 1 July, the Chief Executive has the authority to take the initiative in respect of the commencement of legislative procedure or otherwise. He can either introduce blue bills to the Council before 1 July or present legislative proposals in the form of white bills to the Council for suggestions. For this reason, the Working Group considered it necessary to make preparation by providing in the rules of procedure the provisions and mechanism to deal with the different forms of bill introduced by the Chief Executive.
Within the scope of the resolution made by the Preparatory Committee and of the discretionary power of the Chief Executive to introduce bills, the Working Group has identified three options and consulted Members on these three options.
Option (a): to complete scrutiny of legislative proposals before 1 July 1997 and to have the three Readings of bills conducted on or after 1 July 1997
The Working Group opined that this option has the following merits:
(1) It can avoid giving the impression of having two legislatures operating at the same time and can set the public mind at ease. The PLC will also be able to conduct public consultations, detailed examination of and debate on the legislative proposals before 1 July.
(2) Since the PLC has not started its legislative procedure before 1 July, the risk of political and legal challenges will be minimized.
The shortcoming of this option is that there is no certainty that the necessary legislation could be enacted soon enough for it to come into effect on the day the Hong Kong SAR will be established, as there is the need to respect Members' right to conduct debate on and move amendment to the bills. The longer the time taken for the three Readings, the longer will the legal vacuum become and consequently the time limit of the retrospective period will have to be extended. In view of this shortcoming, the Working Group suggested that a mechanism should be set up to ensure that the relevant blue bills introduced on 1 July will not be debated extensively and amended. This mechanism can take the form of a resolution passed on the white bill in this Council, or it may also be a gentlemen's agreement among Members.
Six out of 12 members of the Working Group expressed support for this option.
Option (b): the first and second Readings of bills to take place before 1 July and the third Reading to take place on or after 1 July
On review, the Working Group found that this option has not been able to eliminate the undesirable features of the other options, that is to say, it is not sure whether bills will be passed, neither could the challenges for having started the legislative process before 1 July be avoided. The Working Group therefore decided to drop this option.
Option (c): all three Readings of bills to complete before 1 July and confirmation of the bills passed to take place on 1 July
The Working Group considered that there are two obvious advantages for this option:
(1) Technically, the bills which have formally gone through the three Readings before 1 July will be able to be positioned as early as possible so that the public will know what to follow.
(2) This option is in strict compliance with the resolution passed by the Preparatory Committee on 1 February 1997.
The adoption of this option will involve the creation of a "confirmation" process which is quite novel to common law jurisdictions and will require the PLC to formulate a new set of rules to govern its form and procedure. The Working Group considered that since the bills passed have been provided with the opportunity to be fully debated and voted on during the three Readings of the bills, the "confirmation" process ought to be a formal, quick and simple procedure.
The Working Group considered that flaws for this option are:
(1) The "confirmation" process is a new law-making process and there may be a need to explain it to the public.
(2) The commencement of a legislative procedure before 1 July might give the public an impression that the PLC is already making laws simultaneously with the Hong Kong Legislative Council. Moreover, any legislative procedure commencing before the establishment of SAR or any bill passed, to be confirmed on 1 July, will be subject to legal and political challenges.
Six out of 12 members of the Working Group expressed support for the third option.
The Working Group has also considered the means to be used, and we understand that the Chief Executive has a duty to ensure that all necessary legislation should become effective and be implemented upon the establishment of the Hong Kong SAR. He also has a duty to fill up any legal vacuum that may arise. Yet members of the Working Group are split in two different views on the form of legislative procedure to be taken to enable the necessary legislation to become effective on 1 July 1997. Nevertheless, they do not object to providing the procedure for implementing both options in the Rules of Procedure. Whether and how the procedure would be used will be entirely the decision of the Chief Executive who would have to explain to the public and justify to the Council why he has adopted such it.
In regard to the implementation of option (a), the Working Group concludes that the Council should commit any legislative proposal to a select committee which will undertake detailed scrutiny of the proposal. In the course of its scrutiny, the select committee should propose amendments to the proposal to the Chief Executive prior to its reporting back to the Council. Subsequently, the final report, together with the Chief Executive's response to the proposed amendments, will be presented to the Council and a motion to support the legislative proposal in principle will be moved and debated on. Once consent for the motion is received from the Council, the three Readings of the bill will take place on 1 July 1997, with the least debate.
If option (c) were implemented, the Working Group concludes that the normal procedures of First Reading, adjournment of the Second Reading debate, referral to a Bills Committee for detailed study where necessary, resumption of the Second Reading debate, Committee Stage and Third Reading should all be followed. When a Bill is passed after the process of three Readings, a confirmation process should be able to take place on 1 July 1997. The confirmation process will be similar to that of the Third Reading. No debate will be allowed and no amendment to the bill at the confirmation stage may be moved.
The Working Group has included in the draft Rules of Procedure provisions for the implementation of the above arrangements.
In respect of retrospectivity of laws passed or confirmed on 1 July, the Working Group, after considering the above-mentioned options, has unanimously agree to the following principle: in order to prevent any legal vacuum in the small hours of 1 July 1997, bills should take retrospective effect from the first moment of 1 July 1997. The Working Group clearly understands that, provided that the legislative intention is clear, the law would allow for, if necessary, a degree of retrospectivity as far as the commencement day is concerned. Meanwhile, however, the Working Group notes that the fundamental principle of legislation, particularly in the case of legislation which imposes criminal sanctions, by which the conduct of mankind is to be regulated, is to deal with future acts, so on the basis of this principle, retrospectivity in such circumstances should be avoided. For this reason, the Chief Executive has to consider whether any of the proposed legislation coming before the Council should impose criminal sanctions with retrospective effect, especially since the majority of the relevants acts are already adequately regulated under the existing laws of Hong Kong which shall continue to be effective in the future.
As for immunity to legal proceedings, are Members enjoying it in respect of their freedom of expression at the meetings of the Council? The legal advice we obtained from China is that by the operation of the principle of application of "analogous law", immunity from legal action enjoyed by members of comparable national, provincial and district representative bodies should be extended to the Council. Article 77 of the Basic Law also makes it clear that "Members of the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be immune from legal action in respect of their statements at meetings of the Council". As the Basic Law is already a valid law in China, it will give Members of the Council similar protection provided that Members' statements are made in the proceedings of the Council or its committees. The position in respect of Members' statements being reported or broadcast outside China is still being looked into from the perspective of protection offered under China laws.
Concerning the restriction on Members' motions and amendments, Article 74 of the Basic Law provides that Members may introduce bills which do not relate to public expenditure or political structure or the operation of the government, and written consent of the Chief Executive shall be required before bills relating to government policies are introduced. Having referred to the interpretation made by members of the Basic Law Drafting Committee, the Working Group takes the view that Article 74 is only meant for bills introduced by Members, either individually or jointly with others, and does not apply to Members' motions or amendments. Nevertheless, the Working Group considers it prudent to retain the present restriction on those motions and amendments, the object or effect of which may, in the opinion of the President of the Council, be to dispose of or charge any part of the revenue or other public moneys of Hong Kong. Written consent from the Chief Executive is required for such moving such motions or amendments.
The Working Group has also discussed the committee system. Generally speaking, the present committee structure of the Hong Kong Legislative Council is operating satisfactorily. The Working Group does not see any need for major changes. Of course, certain areas may require further review, such as the relationship between the Council and its committees. The Working Group therefore agrees that to include in the Rules of Procedure of the Council the same procedures for the current committees of the Hong Kong Legislative Council. The Working Group will further review the operation mechanism of some of the committees of the Council and propose changes to the Council as and when required after further detailed discussion.
In the light of the functions of the Council before 1 July 1997, the Working Group recommends that the House Committee, the Finance Committee and the Committee on Members' Interests should commence operation as soon as practicable. Other committees, such as the Bills Committees or Select Committees, may start to operate as and when required. As for the Panels, there is no need to set them up before 1 July 1997.
Concerning the presentation of the Rules of Procedure to the Council for adoption, the Working Group agrees that the proposed Rules of Procedure to be adopted by the Council should apply to the entire term of office of the Council. While certain parts of the Rules may not be required before 1 July 1997, the Working Group considers it more appropriate to present the whole set of rules for the sake of completeness and for ensuring a better understanding of the operation and mechanism of the Council.
In the process of its study, the Working Group has identified some areas which still require further review. These areas include the improvement of the drafting of the Rules of Procedure in Chinese, the need of accompanying a petition in the Chinese language or English language by an English translation or Chinese translation certified to be correct by a court translator, the period of giving notice to the Council in respect of motions and bills, the need of providing a deputy chairman for the Committee on Members' Interests and so on. In order to ensure that the Council can be presented with the Rules of Procedure for its adoption at today's meeting, these issues will be considered at meetings to be scheduled so that discussion on them would not be unnecessarily constrained by time. The Working Group also considers that there should be an English version of the Rules of Procedure of the Council and decides that it will be the next item of business on its agenda.
The Working Group agrees that I, on behalf of the Working Group, will move two resolutions later at this meeting in order to:
(1) adopt the Rules of Procedure of the Council; and
(2) start the operation of the House Committee, the Finance Committee and the Committee on Members' Interests as soon as practicable.
Madam President, my report ends here.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Howard YOUNG.
MR HOWARD YOUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, I would like to seek elucidation on one point in the report. Regarding the confirmation procedure on 1 July, has the Working Group in the course of its discussion restricted the application of this procedure to 1 July only? Or will the operating process of the Provisional Legislative Council as a whole be taken as a formal procedure in the future? Or will this issue be subject to future discussion in order to reach a decision?
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mrs Selina CHOW.
MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): Regarding the Honourable Howard YOUNG's question, I would like to ask him to refer to the provision concerning "confirmation" in the draft Rules of Procedure again. The confirmation process is required only upon the establishment of the Hong Kong SAR. After that, bills will have to go through the three-reading process and the confirmation process will no longer be required. Perhaps Mr YOUNG can take a look at Rule 65 of the Rules of Procedure which has made it clear that "A bill which has been read the third time and passed before the establishment of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be subject to confirmation at the first meeting of the PLC after such establishment by a motion, which may be moved without notice by the public officer in charge of the bill or in respect of more than one bill and the motion shall be voted on without amendment or debate." I am sure Rule 65 has already answered Mr YOUNG's question. Thank you, Madam President.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LAU Kong-wah.
MR LAU KONG-WAH (in Cantonese): I would like to seek elucidation on two issues concerning option (a) mentioned in paragraph 11 of the paper. Firstly, it is mentioned that if this option is adopted, there may be a gentlemen's agreement among Members. During the discussion, how did the Working Group feel about the effectiveness of a gentlemen's agreement and the chance of securing it? Secondly, legal vacuum is of grave concern to the community which considers that the shorter the period of legal vacuum the better. But it seems to me that option (a) will lengthen the legal vacuum period. Madam President, I would like to ask whether the Working Group has assessed the length of the legal vacuum period under option (a) and option (b) respectively. Thank you, Madam President.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mrs Selina CHOW.
MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): Madam President, as far as "legal vacuum" is concerned, I have already mentioned in the report that Members are greatly concerned about it and they would like to see it minimized. For both options, arrangements have been made to enable full debates and discussion on the bills to take place before 1 July. We have also considered the issue of "gentlemen's agreement" raised by the Honourable LAU Kong-wah. At the formal sittings of the present Hong Kong Legislative Council, all Members will respect the practice of certain procedures if it has been discussed in the meeting of the House Committee and agreed unanimously by all Members. In view of this, we have considered two options: one option is the adoption of the "gentlemen's agreement", which is tantamount to an unanimous agreement by all Members; another option is the passing of a resolution in the form of a white bill in the Council. In other words, this will not require prior agreement by all Members. Both options will ensure a minimum period of "legal vacuum".
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Bruce LIU.
MR BRUCE LIU (in Cantonese): Madam President, during the discussion about options (a) and (c), six members of the Working Group expressed support for option (a) and six members expressed support for option (c) ─ both options relate to the question as to whether the Council should complete three readings of bills before 1 July 1997. I would like to ask the Honourable Mrs Selina CHOW why did she not exercise her casting vote at that time so that the voting result could have become 7:6 in order to give a clearer message to the public and to bring to the Chief Executive the message that the completion of three readings of bills before 1 July 1997 is not quite appropriate?
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Bruce LIU himself is a member of the Working Group on Rules of Procedure. But for this question, it would be better to invite Mrs Selina CHOW to answer it.
MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): In fact, members of the Working Group did understand that this issue did not necessitate a resolution of the Working Group or the Council because the final decision rested with the Chief Executive. The options only served as a tool for expressing opinions, so decision by voting was therefore not necessary. Even when we consulted our colleagues on the options, we did not do so by means of voting because some of our colleagues could not have 100% attendance at meetings due to time constraint. We have therefore not adopted voting as a means to consult all members of the Working Group. I cannot recall that the Honourable Bruce LIU has ever asked me to make that casting vote. He did not make that proposal at that time. But the fact is we did not consult members by means of voting.
PRESIDENT(in Cantonese): Mr Edward HO.
MR EDWARD HO (in Cantonese): Madam President, I would like to seek elucidation on the "confirmation" process as laid down in Rule 65. In the paper, it provides for a confirmation process for "one or more than one of such bills". My question is: Is the process itself tantamount to a bill? Will a bill processing procedure be required? In other words, will it involve three readings of another bill during the confirmation process? Thank you, Madam President.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mrs Selina CHOW.
MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): We have made reference to the three-reading process when we consider a bill or more than one bill. In other words, we are not going to use one bill to embrace all of the bills. We will, instead, see how many of the so-called essential bills need to be passed before 1 July. If there is only one bill, we will confirm one bill; if there are more than one bill, then we will confirm more than one bill. But why did we write it in such a way? The reason is that some colleagues might vote for some bills but against some other bills. If the confirmation process is in respect of a bill or more than one bill, then all of us can vote. We have made reference to the existing three-reading process regarding this point. In other words, we will have all of the bills read out first. If some of our colleagues wish to vote on separate parts of a bill because they are in favour of one part but against the other, then the bill can be split up into two parts for voting. This will demonstrate the flexibility of the process.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LAU Kong-wah. Mr LAU had wished to raise a follow-up question immediately after he asked his question but I have already invited another Member to raise his question. Now it is Mr LAU's turn for his follow-up.
MR LAU KONG-WAH (in Cantonese): Madam President, I would like to follow up for the two questions I have just asked. Regarding the "gentlemen's agreement", of course, I know that in the past we seemed to have no big problem as to what the Honourable Mrs Selina CHOW said. But if a few Members violate the gentlemen's agreement, what will the situation be liked? If a majority of Members violate the agreement, what again will the situation be liked? Has the Working Group assessed the possible outcome? My second follow-up relates to the "vacuum period". Has the Working Group estimated the approximate length of the "vacuum period" under option (a), and under option (c)? What is the difference between the two periods? I believe the Council and the public must be informed about them. Thank you, Madam President.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mrs Selina CHOW.
MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): Madam President, I am afraid I cannot provide an answer to Mr LAU Kong-wah's question because it is impossible to estimate how long the "vacuum period" will be. It is not that we have not considered the question raised by the Honourable LAU Kong-wah. If he could look at the paper again, he will see that we do not rely solely on a "gentlemen's agreement". It will be necessary for us to pass a resolution in the Council. For example, a select committee will be set up to scrutinize a white bill for the purpose of passing a resolution. We have therefore already taken into consideration the first half of the question asked by Mr LAU. However, as for the estimation, I cannot give him an answer and I believe nobody can.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LAU Kong-wah, how about the last follow-up question?
MR LAU KONG-WAH (in Cantonese): Madam President, my last follow-up question. I would like to ask the Working Group if it can confirm that the "vacuum period" of option (a) will be longer than that of option (b)? Will such estimations be available to us?
MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): I am sorry that I cannot provide an answer satisfactory to the Honourable LAU Kong-wah. We have no means to estimate that the "vacuum period" of option (a) will definitely be longer than that of option (c). But I want to emphasize one point which I have already mentioned in the report and that is, what we may be more concerned about the so-called "vacuum period" is the legality of certain acts. We have given special consideration to the criminal aspect. In our discussions, the legal advisers told us that it is very unlikely that the acts we worried about will happen because existing laws already have some control. Therefore, there is no need for us to worry that there will be an absolute lawlessness as such a situation will simply not exist.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Edward HO also has a supplementary question.
MR EDWARD HO (in Cantonese): I do not know whether the Honourable Mrs Selina CHOW has not fully understood my question or I have not fully understood her answer. What I asked is the procedure of "confirmation", that is, are we going to confirm those bills which have already passed through three readings, by motions and subsequent voting on 1 July, no matter whether it will be one bill or more than one bill? Or are we going to confirm them by means of a new bill which has to go through the three readings? Thank you.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mrs Selina CHOW.
MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): It will be the former one. If you take a look again at Rule 65 you will have the conclusion: "...... shall be subject to confirmation ...... by a motion which may be moved without notice by the public officer in charge of the bill". In other words, the bill has already gone through its First Reading, Second Reading and Third Reading. And the motion is purely moved for the purpose of asking the PLC to confirm bills, and that may be one or several bills. The purpose of the motion is purely asking the PLC to confirm. Therefore, all debates and deliberations would have been done beforehand. In this respect, please refer to the last sentence which reads, "the motion ...... shall be voted on without amendment or debate."
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Edward HO.
MR EDWARD HO (in Cantonese): I wonder if the Working Group has ever considered whether the motion itself has legal effect if the form of a motion is adopted? Thank you.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mrs Selina CHOW.
MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): I do not quite understand Mr HO's question. Could Mr HO please elaborate?
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): All right. Mr HO, please.
MR EDWARD HO (in Cantonese): Madam President, a bill that has gone through its three readings will of course has a legal status or effect. What I want to ask is: Will it have the same legal effect it if we adopt the form of a motion? Or will it have any legal effect at all?
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mrs Selina CHOW.
MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): Now I understand, finally. All procedures are decided by motions. Even the Second and the Third Readings are passed by the PLC or the meeting in the form of a motion. Therefore, what we will ask Members to confirm is a motion and the motion is actually about a bill which has been passed. The motion will say that the relevant bill has passed its three readings and the purpose of the motion is to ask Members to confirm the bill. It will be such a motion.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mrs Peggy LAM.
MRS PEGGY LAM (in Cantonese): Madam President, I would like to ask the Honourable Mrs Selina CHOW to elucidate one point through you. I know that the Working Group has consulted other Members, including myself, on the three options, and I have also expressed my personal opinions for its consideration. I wonder if the Working Group has made reference to our views when discussing the three options. Have our views been included in your votes? If so, the voting result would not be 6:6. I hope Mrs Selina CHOW could explain and clarify this point. Thank you, Madam President.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mrs Selina CHOW.
MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): In order not to make the Honourable Mrs Peggy LAM feel that her effort has been wasted, I can assure her that we have fully considered the opinions expressed by 13 Members and we are very grateful to them. As to the number of votes mentioned, it is not expressed in the form of a certain ratio. One point that I would still like to stress is that it is not our practice to pass a certain resolution by voting. Since that was a consultation process, the Working Group has fully considered the opinions expressed by Members before putting forwards its viewpoint. Neither a voting nor a resolution has been involved.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Ronald ARCULLI.
MR RONALD ARCULLI (in Cantonese): Madam President, let me refer back to the Honourable Edward HO's question. I believe it would be more flexible if Rule 65 can be written as "motions or bills". I would like to ask the Honourable Mrs Selina CHOW a question: if a public officer tables a bill to us, then Rule 65 cannot be applied. Will there be any problem if it were so written? This final decision will rest with the Chief Executive instead of the PLC. Thank you, Madam President.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mrs Selina CHOW.
MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): Rule 65 only applies to the confirmation of those bills which have been read the Third time and passed before the establishment of the Hong Kong SAR. The question of tabling another bill simply will not arise since it has been clearly stated that only those bills which have been passed after going through three readings will need to undergo a confirmation process. Of course, there is still time for us to reflect more upon the issue, but it is certain that the proposal we put forward now can already be used as the future rules.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHENG Kai-nam.
MR CHENG KAI-NAM (in Cantonese): Madam President, first of all, I would like to declare that I am a member of the Working Group too. I would also like to ask the Honourable Mrs Selina CHOW to elaborate further on the question raised by the Honourable LAU Kong-wah just now. Regarding option (a), paragraph 11 on page 3 of the paper states that, "the shortcoming of this proposal is that there is no certainty that legislation can be enacted soon enough for it to come into effect on 1 July 1997". I would like to ask Mrs CHOW to clarify that similarly, is it impossible to ascertain from option (c) that the "vacuum period" can be minimized or not?
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mrs Selina CHOW.
MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): With regard to "certainty", we have presented all the so-called merits and shortcomings for Members' consideration when analysing the two options. As for the "vacuum period" you mentioned, I do not remember if the Honourable CHENG Kai-nam was with us or not when we discussed the issue. We have indeed talked about the "vacuum period". But if Mr CHENG asks us to estimate, we have no way to do that. As regards the degree of "certainty", we have already pointed it out when we mentioned the merits of option (c).
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Eric LI.
MR ERIC LI (in Cantonese): Madam President, I had originally wanted to follow up with the Honourable Edward HO's question, but things seem to have got clearer subsequent to the Honourable Ronald ARCULLI's query and the answer to the query. However, in order to give Members more assurances and help them better understand the actual operation and legal effect, could the Honourable Mrs Selina CHOW ask the legal advisers to put down some terms more clearly? This is because as far as the Legislative Council is concerned, after a bill is read the Third time and passed, the whole legislative process is over. But before 1 July, these laws passed might entail additional remarks which will probably include the need for an extra procedure for the bills to become effective. In that case, how should these be written and what will the laws be liked? I believe these involve crucial considerations and problems. I wonder if we can have a chance to study the specific terms in the future? Thank you, Madam President.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mrs Selina CHOW.
MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): Certainly. I will be glad to consult with the legal advisers. But who will then be responsible for drafting the wording of the motions as mentioned by the Honourable Eric LI? Will the Administration do it, or are we going to do it? Generally speaking, as far as motions are concerned, the Administration is largely responsible. I shall consult with the legal advisers on this issue and publish the result by way of papers for Members' reference.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Honourable Members, three Members have already raised their hands and now a fourth one raises his. In connection with this report, I would like to allow five more questions. I believe Mrs CHOW and the Working Group will make arrangement to give Members a chance to know more about the report. Mrs CHOW, would you like to do so?
MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): With great pleasure, Madam President.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Thank you, Mrs CHOW. Dr TSO WONG Man-yin.
DR TSO WONG MAN-YIN (in Cantonese): Madam President, just now the Honourable Bruce LIU asked Mrs Selina CHOW when the Working Group discussed option (a) and (c), why she herself had failed to approve of either option (a) or (c) as members' support for both options were equally divided? But in paragraph 12, it was clearly stated that six members of the Working Group expressed support for option (a) and they were Mrs Selina CHOW (Convenor), Mr CHAN Choi-hi, Mr Andrew WONG, Mr Kennedy WONG, Mr Bruce LIU and Mrs Miriam LAU. It is very strange indeed. What attitudes and views did Mr Bruce LIU and Mrs Selina CHOW actually hold towards this issue during the meeting?
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mrs Selina CHOW.
MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): Yes, I think I can answer Dr the Honourable Mrs TSO WONG Man-yin. The question put by the Honourable Bruce LIU just now is: why did I fail to cast the chairman's casting vote? Why did I fail to solve the problem of equally divided opinions and make a final decision? In fact, I have explained to Mr LIU a moment ago. This is because that was not a voting process. Therefore, we did not handle it as if it was a motion which needed to be decided by votes.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr KAN Fook-yee.
MR KAN FOOK-YEE (in Cantonese): Madam President, I have a question relating to paragraph 23 of the Honourable Mrs Selina CHOW's progress report. In this paragraph, it is mentioned that Article 74 of the Basic Law has certainly imposed restrictions on the bills introduced by Members. However, the Working Group considers that the Basic Law has imposed no restrictions on Members' motions and amendments. To be prudent, the Working Group adds at the end of this paragraph a way to solve the problem resulting from the impact of the motions and amendments made on the Government's revenue. I want to ask if the Government has failed to take political structure and government operation into consideration at all? Or, even after consideration, it still needs to come up with such a prudent method? Thank you, Madam President.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mrs Selina CHOW.
MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): Madam President, I think I can answer the Honourable KAN Fook-yee's question. We have held in-depth discussions in connection with this issue. Article 74 of the Basic Law provides that: "Members of the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong SAR may introduce bills in accordance with the provisions of this Law and legal procedures". The bills mentioned therein refer to the bills introduced individually or jointly by Members of the Council. These bills are the same as the so-called Members' Bills introduced individually or jointly under the present system. We have looked again into the Basic Law but found there is no other provision mentioning about motions or amendments. In other words, the Basic Law is silent on this point. However, since at present there are certain restrictions on motions and amendments, we prefer to retain these restrictions in addition to those mentioned by the Basic Law so as to differentiate Members' Bills from the ordinary amendments and motions.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Frederick FUNG.
MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, Rule 65 of the Rules of Procedure has mentioned about the method of implementation if option (c) is adopted, but the feasibility of implementing option (a) is not mentioned at all. I would like to ask the Honourable Mrs Selina CHOW why only option (c) is written in the Rules of Procedure and option (a) is left out when in fact both options receive support from the same number of people? Thank you, Madam President.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mrs Selina CHOW.
MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): I am afraid Mr FUNG has some misunderstood it. In fact, the Rules of Procedure allow both options to be implemented. Option (a) will be implemented in the form of a select committee, and rules concerning select committee are already provided for in the Rules of Procedure. Therefore, both options are feasible.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr James TIEN.
MR JAMES TIEN (in Cantonese): Madam President, I want to ask whether the Working Group, in deliberating options (a) and (c), has discussed the matter of concern mentioned in paragraph 15(c) if, according to option (c), a bill is passed after going through its three readings (there is no need for me to ask about options (a) and (b)). The last sentence of paragraph 15(c) reads, "it may attract legal and political challenges". I can imagine what the political challege will be, but I would like to ask the Honourable Mrs Selina CHOW: what is the difference between the political challenge to be met by the Working Group and its legal advisers and the legal challenge to be met by option (a)? Have the legal advisers advised the Working Group which bills we have accepted are likely to succeed? Will the passage of bills after the three readings as suggested by option (c) be subject to challenge?
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mrs Selina CHOW.
MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): We have discussed this issue. While there are several veteran lawyers in the Working Group, we did not only look at the issues from the legal point of view of our members. We have to consider the opinions of the legal profession at large as well. If the PLC goes through a certain legislative procedure before 1 July, it will lead to some legal challenges. Under such circumstances, this forms an objective view and we cannot totally ignore the existence of such legal views. In fact, a lot of people have expressed opinions about the possibility of having that the bills go through three readings before 1 July. I am sure all Members notice that there are a lot of opinions and I have also publicly advanced my views. Therefore, we think that we also need to pay attention to this issue.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr NGAI Shiu-kit.
MR NGAI SHIU-KIT (in Cantonese): Madam President, what I am going to ask is a question which more than one Member would like to ask the Honourable Mrs Selina CHOW. Why did she not add one more vote to the 6:6 result? It is exactly this voting result of 6:6 that highlights the importance of the issue. Since it is so important, I think the way Mrs Selina CHOW has dealt with it is right and she has also set a very good example. Since it is so important, people should know about it. It will be generally unfair if Mrs Selina CHOW adds one more vote. When it is not the view of the non-mainstream, it will be not proper if one simply adds one vote and make it a mainstream idea . Thank you.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr NGAI, what you expressed is an opinion instead of a question. Now I shall bring the questions seeking elucidation to a temporary close. In the following, we are going to scrutinize some motions.
MOTIONS
TERMS OF REFERENCE OF THE WORKING GROUP ON ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The first motion: Terms of reference of the Working Group on Administrative Matters. Mr IP Kwok-him.
MR IP KWOK-HIM (in Cantonese): Madam President, I move the motion standing in my name on the revised Agenda:
"That the terms of reference of the Working Group on Administrative Matters set up by resolution made and passed by the Provisional Legislative Council on 22 February 1997 shall be:
The Working Group on Administrative Matters should be responsible to the Provisional Legislative Council (the Council) regarding the following matters:
(1) to provide administrative support and services through a secretariat to the Council, including staffing support, terms of employment, office accommodation and other administrative arrangements pertaining to the smooth functioning of the Council and its committees/working groups;
(2) to supervise the operation of the secretariat;
(3) to oversee the domestic arrangements for meetings of the Council and its committees/working groups;
(4) to deliberate on matters relating to the registration of Members' interests, honorarium and allowances for Members, and other services and administrative arrangements to facilitate the work of Members, and to make recommendations to the Council on such matters; and
(5) to perform such other duties as the Council may by resolution determine.
The Working Group on Administrative Matters should conduct reviews at appropriate times and report periodically to the Council."
I hope Members will support this motion.
Thank you, Madam President.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question on the motion moved by Mr IP Kwok-him. Does any Member wish to speak? If no Member wishes to speak, I am now prepared to put the question on the motion moved by Mr IP for a decision by means of a voice vote. Will those in favour of the motion please say "Aye"?
(Members responded)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against the motion please say "No".
(Members responded)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the "Ayes" have it. The motion is carried.
TERMS OF REFERENCE OF THE WORKING GROUP ON RULES OF PROCEDURE
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The second motion: Terms of Reference of the Working Group on Rules of Procedure. Mrs Selina CHOW.
MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): Madam President, I move the motion standing in my name on the Agenda in relation to "the terms of reference of the Working Group on Rules of Procedure":
"That the terms of reference of the Working Group on Rules of Procedure set up by resolution made and passed by the Provisional Legislative Council on 22 February 1997 shall be:
The Working Group on Rules of Procedure should be responsible to the Provisional Legislative Council (the Council) regarding the following matters:
(1) to draft and to propose to the Council for its endorsement the rules of procedure of the Council;
(2) to study the setting up of a committee system to facilitate the work of the Council at various stages of its operation and keep such system under review from time to time and to make recommendations to the Council;
(3) to draft and to recommend guidelines for internal practices for use by the Council and its committees/working groups in the conduct of their business;
(4) to consult regularly with the President on matters of practice and procedure for the conduct of business of the Council; and
(5) to examine matters of practice and procedure referred to the Working Group by the Council, its committees/working groups, the President, or raised by members of this Working Group.
The Working Group on Rules of Procedure should conduct reviews at appropriate times and report periodically to the Council."
I hope Members will support this motion.
Thank you, Madam President.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question on the motion moved by Mrs Selina CHOW. Does any Member wish to speak? I am now prepared to put the question on the motion moved by Mrs Selina CHOW regarding "the terms of reference of the Working Group on Rules of Procedure" to you.
Will those in favour of the motion please say "Aye"?
(Members responded)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against the motion please say "No".
(Members responded)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think Members are unanimously in favour of the motion. I declare the motion is passed.
REGISTRATION OF MEMBERS' INTERESTS
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The third motion: Registration of Members' Interests. Mr IP Kwok-him has given notice to move the motion as set out under his name in PLC Paper No. 62/96-97 and the subsequent PLC Paper No. 74/96-97. I now call upon Mr IP Kwok-him to move his motion. Mr IP Kwok-him.
MR IP KWOK-HIM (in Cantonese): Madam President, after I have proposed the original motion, I was informed that the Working Group on Rules of Procedure has decided to incorporate the provisions pertaining to "Registration of Members' Interests" into the Rules of Procedure of the Provisional Legislative Council. In order to ensure that the content of the motion fits in with the relevant provisions of the Rules of Procedure, I have, with the approval of the President, amended the original motion and have made it clear that the arrangement as specified in the motion will continue to be implemented until another resolution is made and passed to provide for rules of procedure on registration of Members' interests.
Madam President, I move the amended motion standing in my name on the revised Agenda:
"That this Council agrees that unless and until another resolution is made and passed to provide for rules of procedure on registration of Members' interests, the following arrangements shall be adopted with immediate effect:
(1) Except for the purpose of making a registration of interests under paragraph (2), every Member shall, not later than the date specified by resolution made and passed by the Provisional Legislative Council, furnish to the Clerk, in such form as may be approved by the President, particulars of his registrable interests.
(2) Every new Member of the Provisional Legislative Council shall, within 14 days from the date of his becoming a new Member to fill a vacant seat, furnish to the Clerk, in such form as may be approved by the President, particulars of his registrable interests.
(3) Every Member shall furnish to the Clerk, in such form as may be approved by the President, particulars of any change in such registrable interests, within 14 days of any such change.
(4) The Clerk shall cause those particulars to be entered in a Register of Members' Interests and that register shall be available for inspection by any person during office hours.
(5) In this resolution, "registrable interests" means:
(a) remunerated directorships of companies, public or private;
(b) remunerated employments, offices, trades, professions or vocations;
(c) the names of clients when the interests referred to above include personal services by Members which arise out of or are related in any manner to his membership of the Council;
(d) financial sponsorships, as a Member of the Council, by any person or organization, stating whether any such sponsorships include any payment or any material benefit or advantage to the Member or his spouse, whether direct or indirect;
(e) overseas visits made by the Member or his spouse relating to or arising out of membership of the Council whether the cost of any such visit has not been wholly borne by the Member or public funds;
(f) any payments or any material benefits or advantages received by the Member or his spouse from or on behalf of foreign governments, organizations or persons;
(g) land and property;
(h) the names of companies or other bodies in which the Member has, to his knowledge, either himself or with or on behalf of his spouse or infant children, a beneficial interest in shareholdings of a nominal value greater than one-hundredth of the issued share capital."
I hope Members will support this motion.
Thank you, Madam President.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Thank you, Mr IP Kwok-him. I now propose the question on Mr IP's motion to you. Does any Member wish to speak? Mr Edward HO.
MR EDWARD HO (in Cantonese): Rule 5(c) provides that, "the names of clients when the interests referred to above include personal services by Members ......" One point I want to clarify is whether "personal services" is referred to the services related to one's membership of the Council. I think "包括" should not be used here. If "包括" is adopted, it would mean that all other personal services would have to be declared. I see that the English version has used the expression "include interests". Perhaps it is a translation problem. I wonder if it should read as "如以上所提述的個人利益"含有"議員 ......". In other words, declaration should only be made when the services are related to one's membership of this Council. Otherwise, there is no need for declaration. Thank you.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HO would like Mr IP to clarify the meaning behind these two words, is that right? Mr IP, please.
MR IP KWOK-HIM (in Cantonese): Madam President, here it refers to the services provided to clients by Members which are related to his membership of this Council. Thank you, Madam President.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HO.
MR EDWARD HO (in Cantonese): Would you make a ruling as to whether the words chosen can express this meaning? If not, should an amendment be required?
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr IP, could you think about that? I think what Mr HO referred to is the personal interests as mentioned in Rule 5(c), the Chinese translation "包含" would be more appropriate than "包括" in reflecting the full meaning of the English version. What is your opinion, Mr IP?
MR IP KWOK-HIM (in Cantonese): Madam President, the last part of Rule 5(c) has made it clear that the personal services refer to the services which "arise out of or are related in any manner to his membership of the Council." The meaning here is already clear enough. I personally feel that the words chosen have embraced such a meaning. If the Honourable Edward HO does not insist, I hope he could understand that this sentence has been agreed by Members of the Working Group and this sentence is able to convey the desired meaning. Thank you, Madam President.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Thank you, Mr IP. Could you accept the suggestion made by Mr IP on behalf of the Working Group, Mr HO? (Mr HO nodded in agreement) Thank you, Mr HO. Mr Eric LI.
MR ERIC LI (in Cantonese): Madam President, comparatively speaking, Hong Kong is a rather special region in China and can also be described as an autonomous region. I would like to ask the Honourable IP Kwok-him one question. Rule 5(e) and (f) provide that payments received from foreign governments or organizations should be declared. However, if the payments come from organizations based in the mainland which is neither an overseas nor a foreign country, are there any rules regulating the payments and should the payments be declared? Has the issue been considered from this perspective?
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr IP Kwok-him.
MR IP KWOK-HIM (in Cantonese): Thank you, Madam President. If I have heard it correctly, the point in question is the Mainland as far as I understand, am I right? We have not considered the Mainland because the main point is related to overseas countries and the Mainland is not included. Our view is Hong Kong has now become a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China (PRC). This aspect has been dealt with by other provisions and this point should have been included. In other words, if a Member holds shares of Mainland companies or acts as a remunerated director of a Mainland company, then he should declare his interests under other provisions such as subrule (a). This means that the Member concerned is subject to monitoring and he should register his interests. Thank you, Madam President.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Thank you. Mr Eric LI has a follow-up question to seek clarification. Mr Eric LI.
MR ERIC LI (in Cantonese): Madam President, as the Honourable IP Kwok-him has not thought about it, could the Working Group consider this issue more thoroughly? Perhaps the points that need to be considered are more complicated than Mr IP's answer. Thank you.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr IP, would you take this issue into consideration? But that will not affect today's motion.
MR IP KWOK-HIM (in Cantonese): Madam President, the Working Group will be pleased to re-consider the issue raised by the Honourable Eric LI.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr KAN Fook-yee.
MR KAN FOOK-YEE (in Cantonese): Madam President, in regard to Rule 5 (c), I have read through its English and Chinese versions several times. What does the scope of "interests" specifically mean under Rule 5 (c)? I find that both the English and Chinese versions have failed to define the scope of "interests" in full. I would like Mr IP to further elaborate or explain.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr IP.
MR IP KWOK-HIM (in Cantonese): Madam President, what falls within the scope of personal interests depends largely on one's perception and understanding. If a Member provides services to a client in his capacity as a Member of the Council, or benefited as a result, he should consider declaring such information. In my opinion, it might be quite difficult to list out very clearly what kinds of interests should be included because there are so many trades and professions as well as services. It is difficult to state each and every one of them. Thank you, Madam President.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr IP, if a Member is not too certain whether or not an item has to be registered and finds it difficult to decide whether he has to report it, can he ask the Working Group for guidance?
MR IP KWOK-HIM (in Cantonese): Madam President, he is certainly welcomed. Apart from that, the Secretariat, including the legal advisors, should also give advice in this respect.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr TSO WONG Man-yin.
DR TSO WONG MAN-YIN (in Cantonese): Madam President, as a newcomer, I am not too familiar with quite a lot of things. As far as the Honourable Eric LI's question is concerned, I have a follow-up question. Should the Working Group consider the Mainland or Taiwan issues, for instance?
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr IP.
MR IP KWOK-HIM (in Cantonese): Thank you, Mrs TSO. The answer is we would consider that seriously. Thank you, Madam President.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr James TIEN.
MR JAMES TIEN (in Cantonese): Madam President, I am also a member of the Working Group. I would like to ask the Honourable IP Kwok-him a question because it seems to me that he answered the questions too easily. Dr the Honourable TSO WONG Man-yin and I have the same question about Rule 5(f). The paper I have in hand is largely copied from the English version of the Standing Orders of the Legislative Council and is translated again into Chinese. The contents of both are more or less the same. Here it reads,"議員或其配偶從外國政府組職 ......" To the present Legislative Council, the United Kingdom is the sovereign state of Hong Kong instead of a foreign government. But from our standpoint, the United Kingdom is a foreign government. Does the term "foreign government" include the Chinese Government, and the Taiwanese government as mentioned by Mrs TSO just now? If organizations from these governments offer payment to our legislative councillor, the Working Group, including me, may have to bring this issue up for discussion again. Does Mr IP agree with my view?
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr IP Kwok-him.
MR IP KWOK-HIM (in Cantonese): Madam President, we are absolutely clear about the term "foreign organization" as mentioned by the Honourable James TIEN. Since Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region under the PRC, the term "foreign organizations", therefore, does not cover the PRC. Taiwan is part of China's territory, and is of course a part of China, hence, it should not be regarded as a foreign organization either. The foreign governments or organizations we refer to do not fall into this category. Thank you, Madam President.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Thank you, Mr IP. Mr HO Chung-tai.
MR HO CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): Madam President, I would like to ask the Honourable IP Kwok-him a question about Rule 5(f) in which the receipt of payments from foreign governments, organizations or persons is mentioned. First of all, I think the term "foreign persons" is too general. Secondly, the rule has not mentioned the details of the payments. For example, in accordance with Rule 5(c), professional services properly rendered are not included. Furthermore, the expression "from foreign persons" in the sentence "any payments from or on behalf of foreign governments, organizations or persons" will turn the problem into a very wide one because "any payments" would involve any kind of payments. The last point I would like to raise is that there is discrepancy between the English and Chinese versions. For instance, the English version has mentioned "any payments" but the Chinese version does not reflect the meaning of "any" in connection with "payments". I think the Working Group could conduct a study again in this aspect. Thank you.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr IP Kwok-him.
MR IP KWOK-HIM (in Cantonese): Madam President, the word "payments" used in the Chinese version does not indicate whether it is the whole payments or all payments. Anyway, we will consider the opinion from the Honourable Member in the Working Group. Thank you.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr MOK Ying-fan.
MR MOK YING-FAN (in Cantonese): Madam President, being a member of the Working Group, I would like to express an opinion for Members' reference. As far as the registration of Members' interests is concerned, reference is almost entirely made to the declaration form for Members of the present Legislative Council. We can see that in this form, not everything is written very clearly. The reason is to enable Members to rely on their individual judgement when they fill in the form. They can judge whether there is any problem and if they feel there is something they want to declare, they are free to do so; otherwise, for details that do not contravene the rules, they do not have to declare. This is what I understand, and during our last discussion, I think this is the way things were. It will be difficult to do if all kinds of financial items are to be written down in a specific manner because this is entirely a matter of personal judgement. Thank you, Madam President.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Frederick FUNG.
MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, a point of order. According to page five of the Rules of Procedure, after a motion has been moved, the President will invite the Honourable IP Kwok-him to speak and thereafter, other Members can speak on the motion. After all other Members have spoken, the President will then ask Mr IP whether he would like to reply. But now it seems to have turned into a question and answer session. Should all of us speak first before Mr IP answers our questions? Thank you, Madam President.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr FUNG, except Mr MOK Ying-fan, those few Members who spoke just now were only seeking elucidation on the questions that they did not understand. That is why I have allowed Mr IP to reply those questions first. But what Mr MOK just said is an opinion and what you have pointed out is correct. As far as opinions are concerned, we will have to wait for Mr IP to give a reply once and for all. I would like to make a suggestion: it is now eleven o'clock sharp. I propose that we take a 10-minute break. I believe Members can make use of these 10 minutes to discuss some of the questions they want to clarify. When the Council resumes, I will allow time for elucidation first before Members express their opinions.
(Meeting suspended for 10 minutes and then resumed.)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Ronald ARCULLI.
MR RONALD ARCULLI (in Cantonese): Madam President, during the break I have clarified what I have been worried about. Therefore, there is no need for me to raise the question again.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Henry WU.
MR HENRY WU (in Cantonese): Madam President, I have some comments about motions. Though the term "Members" has been frequently used, "Members of the Provisional Legislative Council" is also mentioned in some motions. Should consistency be maintained in our choice of word? For instance, we can use either "Members of the Provisional Legislative Council" or "Members". Thank you, Madam President.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to seek elucidation? Since what Mr WU just said is an opinion, Mr IP is not required to give an immediate reply. Does any other Member wish to seek elucidation on the motion? Mr Frederick FUNG.
MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, I agree that Members' personal interests should be registered and a committee be established for this purpose. As Members of a legislature, our financial position, political involvement or relationship with overseas organizations should be clearly listed out for the public information. I think we need to do it and should do it as soon as possible. The longer the time taken, the further the delay will be. And people will become more suspicious as to whether we are postponing the registration for the purpose of protecting our personal interests. For this reason, I hope that the motion can be passed and put into practice without delay. In the course of implementation, Members may have different opinions about many of the provisions, the choice of word or even the contents. But this is unimportant. In the event that this motion is passed today and there are queries concerning any particular term or particular point, Members can propose a motion before twelve noon next Monday to amend the wording at the forthcoming meeting. In fact, this is not a serious problem at all. In my opinion, we should pass the motion and give support to our Members in the Working Group, and also register Members' interests as soon as possible. Thank you, Madam President.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Thank you, Mr Frederick FUNG. Does any Member wish to speak? If not, I would like to call upon Mr IP to reply. Mr IP.
MR IP KWOK-HIM (in Cantonese): Thank you, Madam President. Thank you for your wise decision of suspending the meeting for 10 minutes so that I can obtain a lot of invaluable opinions from Members. The first point I would like to clarify is: the declaration of Members' interests as a whole can be said to be based on our capacity as Members of the Provisional Legislative Council (PLC). We have to register our interests because we are Members of this Council. This is the first point. That's why the entire declaration form was drafted on this basis. The second point I need to highlight is: it is up to individual Members to decide whether they need to declare or not. In other words, a Member should register his interests if he thinks that his interests will affect or is related to himself or his public office as a Member. The decision is entirely a personal one. Of course, the Secretariat of the PLC and our Working Group will be very pleased to give advice in this respect for Members' reference. Meanwhile, the proposed contents have generally followed the provisions used by the present Legislative Council. Our Working Group will certainly give serious and further consideration to the invaluable opinions expressed by Members just now. And we will make amendments where necessary. At the present stage, however, I hope that the President will allow me to make an amendment to the wording of Rule 5(f). My proposed amendment is as follows: "議員或其配偶，因其議員身份，從外國政府、組織或人士所收受或代表外國政府組織或人士所收受的款項、實惠或實利。".
I hope this amendment can be made in order to allay Members' misgivings. Thank you, Madam President.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr LEONG Che-hung.
DR LEONG CHE-HUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, a point of order. Should we move an amendment before the motion is passed, or should we, as the Honourable Frederick FUNG said, submit an amendment to the Secretariat for further amendment when necessary? Thank you, Madam President.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Thank you, Dr LEONG Che-hung for your question. The general practice is that if the amendment itself involves some substantial and major alterations, notice has to be given so that Members can have sufficient time to consider the amendment. But if the amendment is only a technical one or its purpose is for clarification rather than for substantial alteration, I, as President of this Council, will be able to rule that such an amendment is allowed and no prior notice is required. In my opinion, Mr IP Kwok-him's amendment is for clarification rather than one of a substantial nature. If I understand it correctly, this idea has in fact been clearly spelt out during the discussion process of the Working Group. It is only that this idea has not been written out clearly, thus causing some misunderstandings among Members. So I rule that Mr IP's amendment shall be accepted and no prior notice is required. Does any Member wish to speak on Mr IP's amended motion? Mr TAM Yiu-chung.
MR TAM YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Rule 5(f) is concerned about foreign governments. To my knowledge, the original version of this paragraph also drawn from the provision of the present Legislative Council. Therefore, the expression "foreign country" is used. I wonder if the Working Group can consider adopting the expression "香港以外的政府" ("government outside Hong Kong") to make it more accurate. I am afraid that there is no time for us to make this amendment today because this it is rather substantial. I hope the Working Group can re-consider substituting "外國政府" by "香港以外的政府". I believe this expression will be more accurate and can avoid unnecessary misgivings. Thank you, Madam President.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HO Chung-tai.
MR HO CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): Madam President, I agree with the Honourable IP Kwok-him's proposed amendment to the Chinese version. But I hope that the same amendment would also be made to the English version. Thank you, Madam President.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LAU Kong-wah.
MR LAU KONG-WAH (in Cantonese): Madam President, I agree that "因其議員身份" should be added and I also agree with what the Honourable TAM Yiu-chung has just said. I am a member of the Working Group and the Working Group has indeed talked about this issue, though whether or not China and Taiwan should be included has not been discussed. I agree to the idea of using "governments or organizations outside Hong Kong". If we have certain ideas or a consensus, we might as well have a discussion here today. If not, we can refer this substantial amendment to the Working Group for further discussion. But as far as this provision is concerned, I am in support of using the expression "香港以外" ("outside Hong Kong") as a substitute. Thank you, Madam President.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mrs Selina CHOW.
MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): Madam President, I understand that as we do not have the Rules of Procedure yet, there are no practices or rules for our reference when we are required to consider these matters all of a sudden. To a certain extent, I agree with the opinion expressed by Dr the Honourable LEONG Che-hung just now. Of course, this should be decided by you ─ we will respect and accept your ruling. However, I absolutely oppose the moving of other amendments without prior notice and the hasty making of decisions without giving Members any chance for discussion and consideration.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any Member have other comments? If not, I would like to call upon Mr IP Kwok-him to reply.
MR IP KWOK-HIM (in Cantonese): Madam President, I believe that members of our Working Group have all listened to the views expressed by Members just now attentively. But as the President has pointed out in her ruling, any substantial discussion or amendment should be proposed to the Council for approval only after we have detailed discussions about it. This is my personal opinion. Concerning the point raised by the Honourable TAM Yiu-chung just now, I am not prepared to propose an amendment again at the present stage or at today's meeting. I hope, as what we have just said, Members will understand that the Working Group will definitely consider Members' opinions and propose amendments to issues of concern at the earliest time and the earliest meeting. Thank you, Madam President.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr IP Kwok-him concerning the registration of Members' interests be approved. Will those in favour please say "Aye".
(Members responded)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please say "No".
(Members responded)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the "Ayes" have it. I declare that the motion proposed by Mr IP Kwok-him is carried.
FURNISHING OF PARTICULARS OF REGISTRABLE INTERESTS OF MEMBERS OF THE PROVISIONAL LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The fourth motion: Furnishing of particulars of registrable interests of Members of the Provisional Legislative Council. Mr IP Kwok-him.
MR IP KWOK-HIM (in Cantonese): Madam President, I move the motion standing in my name on the revised Agenda, which is:
"That pursuant to and for the purpose of the resolution made and passed by the Provisional Legislative Council on 22 March 1997 on registration of Members' interests, every Member of the Provisional Legislative Council shall furnish particulars of his registrable interests to the Clerk to the Provisional Legislative Council not later than 5 April 1997."
I hope that Honourable colleagues would support this motion.
Thank you.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose Mr IP Kwok-him's motion to you. Does any Member wish to speak? Mr Frederick FUNG.
MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): Just as what I have said in my speech a moment ago, I agree and support that every Member of the Provisional Legislative Council (PLC) should register and made known to the public particulars of his relevant personal interests without delay. I therefore support the motion, and so do the four Members from the Hong Kong Association for Democracy and People's Livelihood (ADPL). I only hope that the Secretariat would take note of one point. The motion states that every PLC Member has to furnish particulars of his registrable interests to the PLC Secretariat not later than 5 April 1997, but 5 April in fact is a holiday. I would like to make sure whether it is right that we cannot submit the relevant information on 5 April, and that the latest date should instead be 4 April because the submission cannot be made after 5 April. If that day is included, the Secretariat would have to arrange for a place to collect the submissions from Members on 5 April. In short, I myself and the four Members from ADPL all agree to and support the motion.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? Mr IP Kwok-him, do you wish to reply?
MR IP KWOK-HIM (in Cantonese): I am grateful that the Honourable Frederick FUNG has brought up such a case. We are concerned about it and indeed we have overlooked the fact that 5 April is a holiday. Subject to Members' approval, I will consider limiting the arrangement to be made within 14 working days. I cannot tell you when exactly the new date will be now, but I hope that Members can understand that we are using 14 working days as the criterion for calculation. Thank you, Madam President.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr IP Kwok-him on furnishing of particulars of registrable interests of Members of the Provisional Legislative Council be approved. Will those in favour of the motion please say "Aye"?
(Members responded)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please say "No".
(Members responded)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the "Ayes" have it, so I declare that the motion is carried.
ADOPTION OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE PROVISIONAL LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OF HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The fifth motion: Adoption of the Rules of Procedure of the Provisional Legislative Council of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Mrs Selina CHOW has issued a notice informing Members that she will move the motion standing in her name on the revised Agenda. Subsequently, she proposed an amendment to her motion which is set out in the Schedule. I now call upon Mrs Selina CHOW to move her motion. Mrs Selina CHOW.
MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): I move the motion standing in my name and that is: That the Rules of Procedure of the Provisional Legislative Council of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region set out in the Schedule be adopted. The Schedule concerned is listed in PLC Papers No. 69, No. 75 and No. 77.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose Mrs Selina CHOW's motion to you. Does any Member wish to speak? Mrs Selina CHOW.
MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): Madam President, colleagues indicated to me that since this is the Rules of Procedure of this Council and it is rather long and complicated, they need time to study and consider it in depth. As the colleagues who do not belong to the Working Group have only several days to study the Rules, it is difficult for them to fully digest the contents and provisions and to have enough time to come up with amendments. Therefore, they would like to have more time to study the Rules in detail. Madam President, I appreciate my colleagues' concerns and so I move to adjourn the debate now.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That Mrs Selina CHOW moves to adjourn the debate. Does any Member wish to speak? Mr Frederick FUNG.
MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, in principle, I support the motion itself. However, we are now told at the eleventh hour that the Honourable Mrs Selina CHOW wants to adjourn the debate. For me, I partly support the adjournment, but partly object to it. I would like to talk about my view. Throughout the entire set of the Rules of Procedure, Rule 65 is the only provision which the other four Members from the Hong Kong Association for Democracy and People's Livelihood (ADPL) and I do not approve of. We believe if the three-reading process takes place after 1 July 1997, some problems might arise. For example, we mentioned that ...... I would not challenge whether the Provisional Legislative Council (PLC) can legislate or not since the Preparatory Committee has already decided that the PLC can legislate ......
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Sorry ─ Mr Edward HO.
MR EDWARD HO (in Cantonese): Madam President, point of order. As the question you propose to us now is whether the debate should be adjourned rather than debating on the original motion itself, I would like to seek your ruling if the Honourable Frederick FUNG should debate on the original motion at this moment?
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I would like to thank Mr Edward HO for reminding me. What we are debating now is whether the debate should be adjourned, that is to say, have it adjourned first and continue with the debate some time in the future. Mr FUNG.
MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): I want to tell the struggle going on in my mind before I let Members know how I look at the issue. May I go on, Madam President?
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I would like you to go on, Mr FUNG, but I hope you can focus your speech on whether this motion debate should be adjourned or not. You can adduce your reasons for supporting or opposing the motion, or the reasons for abstention. All right?
MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, I have a feeling that I will agree. If I agree, it is because I do not subscribe to Rule 65. If the Rules of Procedure never appears, Rule 65 will also never appear, this is the reason why I agree. As to who can put forward legislative proposals, the Basic Law states that the Special Administrative Region (SAR) Government, not the Chief Executive, can do so. If Rule 65 is implemented before the establishment of the SAR Government on 1 July, I am worried that certain problems may arise. This is not a question as to whether the PLC can legislate, but a question concerning other matters ......
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Sorry, Mr FUNG, please be concise with your speech as far as possible.
MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): ...... Secondly, but then again, I also subscribe to the adjournment because I feel that certain rules are indeed problematic and the problems need to be scrutinized again by the Working Group, particularly in discussing the legal aspect. I feel that there is really a need for further study. I have to speak out these reasons. If you do not let me voice them, I can only say "Aye" or "No".
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I have already let you speak, Mr FUNG.
MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): For instance, such issues as Rule 65, whether the PLC Members are designate or not, or certain provisions that I mentioned a moment ago are all legal issues which need to be deliberated. But I am also worried that something undesirable will happen if the debate is adjourned indefinitely, since the Honourable Mrs Selina CHOW's motion only talks about adjournment but without clearly stating until when it would be postponed. On the other hand, if the Rules of Procedure were passed, though they may be full of contradictions, we still have rules to abide by and procedures to follow. For this reason, I also think that it would be nice if we can have the Rules of Procedure as soon as possible, and it would even be better if we can have them today. This is where my contradiction lies. I will choose between the two options if Mrs Selina CHOW can tell us when she will table the motion again. If the debate is to be postponed indefinitely, I will object to the adjournment, and so will the ADPL.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr FUNG, in fact you have a question, and that is, you hope Mrs CHOW would clarify when the adjourned debate will be resumed. So this is an elucidation, is it not?
MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, actually I feel that my question is not for elucidation. I am talking about two situations and this is what I have in my speech for the debate. What I mean is if I support the postponement, it is because of Rule 65; if I oppose the postponement, it is because the Council has to have a set of Rules of Procedure. Therefore, the sooner we have the Rules the better, and it would the best thing if we can have it today. I support that we should have the Rules passed today. But if we really have to postpone it due to certain legal factors, I would agree to do so. However, if it is because certain Members allege that they are not clear about it, then I would not agree. We cannot postpone a motion on the Agenda simply because some Members are not clear about it. Unless there are distinct legality issues involved and the law would be infringed if the issues are not clarified, then I would feel that there is a need for a postponement to give us time to study them.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I understand what you mean, Mr FUNG. Does any other Member wish to speak? If not, I would like to call upon Mrs Selina CHOW to reply.
MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): Madam President, my motion is very clear and I have no intention to amend it. I believe if I move amendment now, you may not approve it. Anyway, I do not have such intention. My motion is: That the debate be adjourned. If any Honourable colleague disagrees with the adjournment, he can cite his reasons now. Perhaps he can try to convince other colleagues. But I believe it would be inappropriate to add some words in the motion stating when the debate will be resumed. Moreover, it would not be viable procedure-wise. As for the logic the Honourable Frederick FUNG came up with just now, I believe it would be best for Members to judge, and I do not intend to analyze it point by point. Up to now I am still at a loss as to whether he is for or against the adjournment. Maybe he can further elaborate his views on this issue after the meeting. However, I earnestly hope that Honourable colleagues will agree with my opinion: some colleagues would like to have more time for consideration and I absolutely agree that this is a very reasonable demand. Before the passage of the resolution, we should give them some time to ponder or even acquaint themselves with this long-winded paper through members of the Working Group. I do not want to relive the Honourable IP Kwok-him's painful experience just now, and I would also like to extend an invitation to all Members here: if you have any opinion, it would be best if you could let us know in writing, stating how you would like it to be amended for the Working Group's consideration, or you may even contact the Working Group. Just as the President mentioned a moment ago, I also intend to find an occasion on which Honourable colleagues can discuss with us. I believe I have adequate reasons to convince Members to support my motion, and that is: That the debate be adjourned.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr FUNG, do you have a point of order?
MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): Yes, because basically I should not have the chance to speak again. Pursuant to Rule 38(1) and (2), I would like to ask the Honourable Mrs Selina CHOW to elucidate why she said just now that she did not know what attitude I took.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): So you want to have your attitude elucidated? I do not think it is necessary to do so because we shall know later after the voting. Thank you very much, Mr FUNG. Mr Bruce LIU, is it a point of order?
MR BRUCE LIU (in Cantonese): Yes, it is a point of order. Madam President, since this motion has just come up out of the blue, I now ask for an adjournment of three minutes so that I can discuss with other Members or Members from my Party before casting the vote.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think all Members understand the motion perfectly. If you vote for it, this means that the debate on the motion will be resumed in the next meeting ─ this matter is very urgent and Members have to decide as early as possible. If you vote against it, this means that you do not agree to such an idea and I believe there is no need to discuss anymore. I am very sorry, Mr Bruce LIU, I cannot accede to your request. I now put the question to you. Oh, we still have Dr LAW Cheung-kwok. Dr LAW, is it a point of order?
DR LAW CHEUNG-KWOK (in Cantonese): It is a point of order. I wish to request the President to formally elucidate what you said about the motion just now. Did you say that the debate on this motion will surely be resumed in the next PLC meeting? It seems to me that is what you said a moment ago, is it not? I just want to seek elucidation.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): All right, Mrs Selina CHOW.
MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): Since colleagues have doubts, I believe that the Working Group will, as stated very clearly in the paper, try our best to expedite the work and have the set of rules passed as soon as possible. However, while we are trying to expedite the work, we still have to give other colleagues a chance. As regards whether we can fix a date for tabling the motion again, I am afraid I cannot include this point in the present motion. But I can give Dr the Honourable LAW Cheung-kwok a very clear message: the Working Group has not started working only today. On the very day we started to work, we already knew how urgent the matter was. So I believe we can submit the motion again to this Council at the earliest possible moment.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That Mrs Selina CHOW moves to adjourn the debate. Will those in favour please say "Aye"?
(Members responded)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please say "No".
(Members responded)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the "Ayes" have it. Mr FUNG, sorry, I am afraid I have spoken too fast. Please speak.
MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, I claim a division.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr FUNG claims a division. Council will now proceed to a division and will vote after three minutes.(Pause) Honourable Members, since all Members are present, the three-minute waiting time is unnecessary. I rule that we do not have to wait for three minutes ...... Mr Frederick FUNG?
MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): Point of order. I do not agree that because all Members are here we do not have to wait. We have passed a resolution at the very beginning that we should wait for three minutes, otherwise, whatever we have agreed on may be changed very easily any time. I do not agree that we should make a change now.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): One thing I want to say is: it was not a resolution at the very beginning when the meeting started. At the commencement of the meeting today, I told Members that since we had neither agenda nor rules of procedure, I would use this method provisionally. This is within the powers and duties of the President. Though a Member raised an objection and insisted on waiting for three minutes, I feel there is no such a need and I can also see that many Members have made similar responses. So I rule now that we do not have to wait and we shall proceed immediately to voting.
MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, point of order.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): All right, please speak.
MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, if you say we do not have to wait, do we need to vote on that? What I mean is: do we need to vote on the decision that we do not have to wait?
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Frederick FUNG, we do not need to vote because it is within my powers and duties. Is that all right? Is there any other question? Please speak.
MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, this is a very bad precedent. In future, I may still behave in this way, that is to say, I may ask you, Madam President, to immediately alter some of the decisions you have made.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This is not a very bad precedent. Since we do not have a set of rules of procedure yet, the procedure of conducting a meeting thus to be decided by me, the President, for the time being. I fixed the waiting time at three minutes because I thought that there might be some Members who were not here on the spot, so I should allow Members three minutes to come back for the division. However, just now, I looked around and found that all Members were already here, it was, therefore, pointless for me to waste our time. Now that three minutes have already passed, let us start voting.
Those in favour please raise your hands.
(Clerk counted the votes)
Sorry, please keep on raising your hands for some time.
(Clerk counted the votes)
You can put your hands down.
Now I shall read out the names of Members who vote for the motion:
Mr WONG Siu-yee, Mr James TIEN, Mr David CHU, Mr HO Sai-chu, Mr Edward HO, Dr HO Chung-tai, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr NG Ching-fai, Dr David LI, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Elsie TU, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mrs Peggy LAM, Mr Henry WU, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mr YUEN Mo, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr CHEUNG Hon-chung, Mrs TSO WONG Man-yin, Mr LEUNG Chun-ying, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mrs Sophie LEUNG ......
DR LEONG CHE-HUNG (in Cantonese): I did not raise my hand.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): You did not raise your hand. Thank you for pointing out our mistake. I now go on with the names: Mrs Sophie LEUNG, Mr HUI Yin-fat, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TSANG Yok-sing, Mr CHENG Kai-nam, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Kennedy WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr YEUNG Chun-kam, Mr YEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr YEUNG Chun-kam is not here, Mr YEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mr LAU Kong-wah, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr Ambrose LAU, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr Paul CHENG, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Dr TANG Siu-tong, Mr Timothy FOK, Mr KAN Fook-yee, Mr NGAN Kam-chuen, Mr LO Suk-ching, Miss Maria TAM, Mr TAM Yiu-chung. Is that correct? There are 49 votes in favour of the motion.
Now would Members against the motion please raise your hands? (Clerk counted the votes) Put down your hands please. I shall read out the names of Members who voted against the motion: Mr MOK Ying-fan, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Andrew WONG, Mr Bruce LIU, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok. There are five votes against the motion.
Now would Members who abstained please raise their hands? (Clerk counted the votes) Put down your hands please. I shall read out the names of Members who abstained: Mr Eric LI, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr CHAN Choi-hi. There are three abstentions.
I now announce the voting result: there are 49 votes in favour of the motion, five votes against and three abstentions. I declare that Members who voted for the motion have it and the motion is carried. Mr Frederick FUNG.
MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, a point of order. Just now in the third motion, the Honourable IP Kwok-him's motion was carried. He said in his speech that the provisions concerning registration of Members' interests shall be incorporated into the Rules of Procedure of the PLC. Now that we do not have a set of Rules of Procedure, will that motion be affected? Is there a need to amend the wording?
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Frederick FUNG, my ruling is that the motion will not be affected because it is not that we have no Rules of Procedure. We have only adjourned the motion debate on the Rules of Procedure to enable Members to have a chance to communicate their views to the Working Group on Rules of Procedure. Besides, the registration of Members' interests has been agreed upon in the full Council. Therefore, it will become a part of the Rules of Procedure under "Registration of Interests".
OPERATION OF THE FINANCE COMMITTEE, HOUSE COMMITTEE AND COMMITTEE ON MEMBERS' INTERESTS
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The sixth motion: Operation of the Finance Committee, House Committee and Committee on Members' Interests. Mrs Selina CHOW.
MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): As this motion bears a close relationship with the previous motion in relation to the "Adoption of the Rules of Procedure of the Provisional Legislative Council of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region", it is inappropriate to move this motion before the motion on the Rules of Procedure is debated and passed. For this reason, therefore, I hope that Madam President can make a ruling to allow me to withdraw this motion.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Thank you, Mrs Selina CHOW.
Mrs Selina CHOW has requested to withdraw this motion. Does any Member wish to object? If not, ─ in fact, no Member has raised any objection ─ the motion is now withdrawn as requested by the mover, Mrs Selina CHOW.
NEXT MEETING
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now adjourn the Council until Saturaday, 12 April 1997. I hope that Members will arrange to be here the whole day on that day because there will be a lot of things that needs to be discussed and debated. The Secretariat will inform Members by circular in due course. Thank you.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Attention please.
MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): Excuse me, the next meeting of the Working Group on Rules of Procedure will be held at 1 pm on 27 March 1997. Members who are interested in discussing the Rules of Procedure with us may sign up with the Secretariat. The meeting will be held in the Shangri-La Hotel, Shenzhen.
Adjourned accordingly at Twelve noon.
