Like Tree16Likes

Legco Stalls on Maternity Leave Bill

Closed Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    薄扶林
    Posts
    48,481

    Legco Stalls on Maternity Leave Bill

    Background from what I understand:

    - Proposal to increase maternity leave from 10 weeks to 14.
    - To turn this into "law", the bill has to go through the "house committee" which apparently is non-functional for whatever reason
    - Govt proposes that the "house committee" is bypassed and the bill is sent to the "man power committee"
    - Quorum is needed to vote on the Govt proposal to bypass the house
    - Pan-dems and apparently pro-govt legco members are absent from the vote and quorum is not met

    But pro-democracy lawmaker Raymond Chan Chi-chuen requested a head count, which showed a lack of quorum, forcing the adjournment of the meeting.
    Chan said they had to stop the meeting because they could not fully grasp what Law was saying.
    No clue what the politics behind all of this is ... but you'd have thought that the two sides could have come together for something like this which I think is not-political.

    I wish someone would introduce a bill that would hold monthly paychecks for Legco till backlogs are cleared. The checks can be cleared after the elected representatives have shown that they are actually working.

    Mommy bill delayed amid Legco absences | The Standard

  2. #2

    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    Hong Kong / London
    Posts
    7,760

    To put it simply, if this bill is passed they had to select a chairmen of the committee and thus would have a pro establishment guy in charge. Then other bills could easily be passed after this one, so in their view better stall now then after.


  3. #3

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    薄扶林
    Posts
    48,481

    So... the new rules are - lets fuck everything up until democracy wins?

    Andy SNK and kimwy66 like this.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    薄扶林
    Posts
    48,481

    Also, why cant the pan-dems just be honest and give that as a reason for not being at the vote - as opposed to usual bumfuckery like "we could not understand what he was saying" ?


  5. #5

    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    4,921

    If I recall correctly the main concern appears to be once they let somebody get elected and amend the rules of procedure, they would be able to bulldoze through everything else, including more contentious business.

    If not for that, yes, I do think it's counterproductive not to let something like this through. Maybe lawmakers on both sides should try to work out a compromise that ensures they don't steamroll everything through just because they (the pro-establishment legislators) have the numbers?

    MatthieuTofu likes this.

  6. #6

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    薄扶林
    Posts
    48,481

    Speaking of steamrolling things through - realistically, are their no measures that can be done to stop that?

    I assume this is going to mean a frozen and non-functional legco until the next election and assuming that there is a clear winner and they can come up with a path that is acceptable to both sides?


  8. #8

    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    Hong Kong / London
    Posts
    7,760
    Quote Originally Posted by shri:
    Speaking of steamrolling things through - realistically, are their no measures that can be done to stop that?

    I assume this is going to mean a frozen and non-functional legco until the next election and assuming that there is a clear winner and they can come up with a path that is acceptable to both sides?
    Ever since rules have been implemented to stop filibustering, the only way to stall the passage of bills has been to fight over chairmanship of committees (see Extradition Bill in the Bills Committee). If they finally elect a chair to the House Committee, the pro-Establishment side is likely to change rules on chairmanship from the longest serving legislature by default to the LegCo Secretariat until an official chair is elected.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    猴山
    Posts
    23,810
    Quote Originally Posted by shri:
    Also, why cant the pan-dems just be honest and give that as a reason for not being at the vote - as opposed to usual bumfuckery like "we could not understand what he was saying" ?
    The Pandems had most of their powers to stop bad laws taken away after the lawfare of oathtaking (CY Leung had the worst oath error). They were very fleet of foot at the start of the last session and James To nabbed the head position in the bills committee by being the longest servoing LegCo member in the event of a no vote. The Pro-establishment wont recognise this a legitimate claim to the chair voted that they should ignore rules and instill Mr Shek a interim (who is less senior in years) chair and also started more lawfare to prosecute To for something or other.

    If we also take away the ability of Pan Dems to be chair or sub-chair by either by-passing the comittee or ignoring what appear to be legitimate rule following then LegCo is probably completely powerless to protect Hong Kong fro bad laws. Essentially that means what ever is adopted for the maternity laws can be used for the much more important article 23 laws. If you give the Executive an inch they have been shown to take a hectare.

    All the Pro-establishment lawmakers need to do is recognise Mr To legitimate claim to chair the committee.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    薄扶林
    Posts
    48,481

    So say that instead of saying we cannot understand.. Put it on the record.


Closed Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast