bodyType

customContents

entityId

entityUuid

articlePageQuery

filter

article

articleBaseAdvertisingInfoArticle

articleListArticle

articleSeoArticle

helpersCheckIsPostiesArticle

hooksArticleAcknowledgementGateOverlayArticle

hooksTrackPageViewArticle

hooksContentInterestArticle

articleLinkingDataContent

articleSchemaContent

liveArticle

advertZone

sentiment

contentLock

topics

types

sections

moreOnThisArticles

urlAlias

commentCount

sponsorType

authorLocations

authors

paywallTypes

corrections

displaySlideShow

multimediaEmbed

printHeadline

seriesContainer

socialHeadline

headline

flag

firstTopic

glossary

flattenTypeIds

publishedDate

additionalInfoBoxes

images

image

relatedLinks

relatedNewsletters

__typename

createdDate

sponsor

factSheets

series

disableOffPlatformContent

published

updatedDate

summary

subHeadline

body

keywords

copyrighted

customTimezone

liveContents

SCMP Reporter

The Legislative Council and the Urban Council (temporarily called Provisional Legislative Council and Provisional Urban Council) play different roles in Hong Kong's constitutional structure.

 The former is a law-making body whereas the latter is an administrative body with quasi-legislative powers.

 So it may be inappropriate to compare the manner in which they make decisions and hold their meetings. Nevertheless, the temptation to do so is great.

 Those who have witnessed the proceedings of both councils cannot help but be struck by their differences.

 Before June 30, Legco debates on controversial issues could be very acrimonious, but were always conducted in a very orderly manner.

 Former Legco president Andrew Wong Wang-fat voluntarily refrained from expressing his views on public issues, both inside and outside the council, to become an impartial referee.

 Mr Wong even gave up his right to vote to buttress his image of impartiality.

 Under Legco's standing orders, the council president had both an original vote and a casting vote. In practice, Mr Wong never exercised his original vote. He voted only when it was necessary to break a tie.

 In using his casting vote, he followed the Westminster tradition of voting to maintain the status quo or to allow for further deliberations.

 Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, which records British parliamentary practices developed over several centuries, was his guide.

 Mr Wong's rulings were questioned from time to time, but he largely had the respect of councillors for trying to be fair.

 Although the chairman of the Provisional Legislative Council, Rita Fan Hsu Lai-tai, has vowed to develop a new culture for the legislature and has not refrained from speaking in public, she has also tried to maintain an image of impartiality.

 The provisional legislature's rules of order have largely retained the provisions of Legco's standing orders.

 By contrast, Dr Ronald Leung Ding-bong discharges his duties as Urbco chairman not as a referee, but as a leader. He has not refrained from airing his views in public.

 This is not a problem in itself, because he is in charge of a council with specific functions to perform, not a legislature.

 Nor is there any problem for the self-proclaimed 'Dr Toilet' to vow to make Hong Kong's public toilets clean and suggest innovative ways of improving public hygiene.

 But those members of the media and the public who regularly watch Urbco proceedings cannot help forming an impression that Dr Leung has sometimes allowed his personal view to influence the way he conducted the meetings.

 Last Friday's meeting at which a controversial decision was made on the design of the $600 million Central Library was a case in point.

 Dr Leung ruled out requests to discuss four amendments to a motion to allow for further deliberations on the design.

 Instead, he ruled that councillors should go for a definitive vote on the motion. He explained at the time that his decision was in accordance with the rule.

 But the manner in which he interacted with the councillors gave the impression he was impatient with the discussion and was keen to push for a quick decision.

 Councillor Fred Li Wah-ming and Ada Wong Ying-kay both complained their repeated requests to speak were ignored.

 The council's Standing Orders provide that councillors can interrupt others on points of order.

 But councillors chipped in so often when the chairman was speaking that it appeared Dr Leung had lost control. It also appeared only those who interrupted by speaking loudly to catch the chairman's attention would get the floor, not those who quietly put up their hands.

 Eventually, councillors voted 21-21. Dr Leung was among those who voted in favour of retaining the old design, which has been criticised as uninspiring. Like Legco's standing orders, Urbco's rules also provides the council chairman has two votes.

 Dr Leung then exercised his casting vote to scuttle any possibility of further deliberations.

 In doing so, he has not endeared himself to half of the council's members.

 Since then, some councillors have called for a change in the standing orders to strip the council chairman of his two votes.

 Whether such a change is desirable is debatable.

 A mechanism is certainly needed to break an impasse in the even of a tie vote.

 At issue is how the person who wields such a power should vote. There is certainly merit in the Westminster tradition of having an impartial speaker who votes on the side of caution.

 On Wednesday, councillor Manuel Chan Tim-shing filed two motions.

 One blames Dr Leung for invoking improper procedures in ruling out debates on the four amendments to a motion during last Friday's meeting.

 The other expresses 'no confidence' in the council's decision to retain the original design. The wording of Mr Chan's motions is rather clumsy - one can lose confidence in a person, but not a decision.

 Mr Chan said he was not trying to depose Dr Leung.

 But it is clear the underlying message of his motions is that Dr Leung is not fit to remain chairman.

 Whether Mr Chan will succeed is uncertain. He was last year stripped of the chairmanship of a sub-committee by a vote of the council.

 As an independent member who withdrew from the Democratic Party two years ago, he may have difficulties getting support from other councillors with party affiliations.

 One thing is certain. The Urban Council needs a new chairman to restore public confidence.



Chairman flounders for faith of public