Rules of Procedure are the yardstick

    Updated: 2011-04-29 07:53

    (HK Edition)

      Print Mail Large Medium  Small 分享按鈕 0

    As the president of the Legislative Council (LegCo), Jasper Tsang holds the duty of ruling whether motions are to be included in the legislative agenda and tabled for debate. It can be a tough job when his judgments deal with sensitive and political issues.

    Tsang maintains, however, that he doesn't find the job particularly difficult, as long as he is using the Rules of Procedure (ROP) and the law as the yardstick.

    "I will approve motions from the government or lawmakers if they comply with the ROP and reject them if they don't. I will not look at the merits of the motions, i.e. to allow the motions if they are sound or good," he says.

    He quotes lawmaker Paul Tse's recent amendment to the electoral rules for choosing the chief executive in 2012 to stipulate the height, academic qualifications and income of candidates.

    He explains: "Since the amendment complied with the ROP, I allowed it, though some said it was mischievous. But had the amendment said a candidate must be a man, I would have disallowed it because it contravened the sexual discrimination law."

    Tsang also refers to applications for adjournment debates by legislator James To on the Manila hostage-taking incident while the Coroner's Court was in action.

    On the first occasion, To sought permission to move his motion on March 9. His application was rejected. A week later, he applied to move the same motion, after completion of the business listed on the agenda. This time, his request was approved.

    After Tsang rejected To's first application, To unduly accused the LegCo president of behaving in a "cold-blooded" manner. The mother of Masa Tse, the tour guide who was killed in the Manila hostage taking incident, accused Tsang of rubbing salt in their wound.

    "Though criticism was expected, I could not allow the debate since it did not abide by the rules. I could not openly debate the matter with him. I also fully understood that Mrs Tse, emotionally, could not accept my decision. Some people suggested that I write a letter to her, but it was not easy to explain the rhyme or reason.

    "Even the pro-establishment camp sometimes criticizes me for being too lenient with applications by the pan-democracy camp, while being strict with their applications," he says.

    As always, he says he relies on the unambiguous, consistent opinions from legal advisers and the staff of the LegCo Secretariat, prior to making rulings. He jokes that his job is not difficult because his decisions are not political decisions, adding: "Tax cuts, cash payouts and resumption of the Home Ownership Scheme are political decisions."

    As to the behavior and language used by lawmakers at meetings, Tsang is inclined to leniency. Only when a lawmaker's conduct becomes grossly disorderly does Tsang believe the offending lawmaker merits expulsion.

    "As they are elected by their voters, their rights to speak at meetings are paramount and I will not exercise the power casually," he says.

    Tsang remembers that on Feb 23, the budget day, lawmaker Albert Chan put several "props" on the table for purposes of making a statement about the budget. He drew complaints from lawmakers seated behind him that Chan's exhibits were blocking the view of other lawmakers. Chan finally moved his props after being told repeatedly to do so.

    "I did not want to expel anyone before the budget speech had started. Chan and his party colleague Raymond Wong did not stir further troubles for the rest of the meeting," Tsang explained.

    "I later asked Chan why he 'behaved so well' for the rest of the day. He said he did not make further disruption, since five minutes were already wasted, showing that lawmakers have to understand to what extent the public will tolerate their conduct."

    In order to maintain discipline, Tsang says he will disallow unparliamentary and offensive language at meetings. He concedes, however, that the question of what is unparliamentary language is controversial.

    He says: "This hinges upon the entire social culture and the level of acceptance by the public. The use of unparliamentary language has continued for sometime until public dissatisfaction backfired and I ruled that some language is unparliamentary and should not be used."

    Equally, it is not easy to define offensive language, given that lawmakers from opposite camps often criticize one another, using words such as "shameful" and "lackey", with the persons being criticized feeling offended.

    "Even one who calls another a 'liar' may give offense," Tsang says.

    "But as the president, I will not initiate action until complaints by government officials or lawmakers. When this happens, I will adjourn the meeting, discuss with the legal adviser and secretary-general and search previous rulings before handing down a ruling."

    Owing to a spate of disruptive behavior, the Committee on Rules of Procedure has proposed to empower chairmen of panels, committees and permanent committees to expel lawmakers whose conduct is deemed grossly disorderly. That motion will be tabled for debate on May 11.

    (HK Edition 04/29/2011 page4)

    久久中文字幕精品| 99热门精品一区二区三区无码| 人妻无码视频一区二区三区| 最近高清中文在线国语字幕5| 日韩精品无码一本二本三本| 亚洲一区日韩高清中文字幕亚洲| 亚洲精品一级无码中文字幕| 无码专区永久免费AV网站| 亚洲日韩AV一区二区三区中文 | 国产亚洲美日韩AV中文字幕无码成人| 国产亚洲美日韩AV中文字幕无码成人 | 中文字幕乱码人妻综合二区三区| 中文字幕无码久久精品青草| 黄A无码片内射无码视频| 成人无码免费一区二区三区| 线中文在线资源 官网| 熟妇人妻中文字幕无码老熟妇| 亚洲人成无码网站久久99热国产| 人妻少妇伦在线无码专区视频| 在线精品无码字幕无码AV| 在线观看中文字幕码| 最近中文国语字幕在线播放| 欧美精品中文字幕亚洲专区| 中文人妻av高清一区二区| 亚洲gv天堂无码男同在线观看| 黑人无码精品又粗又大又长| av大片在线无码免费| 精品无码久久久久久尤物| 麻豆aⅴ精品无码一区二区| 无码h黄动漫在线播放网站| 亚洲AV无码第一区二区三区| 亚洲V无码一区二区三区四区观看| 成人无码WWW免费视频| 亚洲国产精品无码久久久不卡 | 精品无码成人片一区二区98| 亚洲中文字幕无码爆乳av中文 | 亚洲韩国精品无码一区二区三区| 亚洲欧洲精品无码AV| 亚洲国产成人精品无码区在线观看| 亚洲熟妇无码八AV在线播放| 亚洲av福利无码无一区二区|