* Updated: Office of the Chief Executive just responded to media inquiry [4] and clarified that the withdraw will be an announcement not involving vote or debate per rule 64. (I haven't found an English copy yet.)
Before update:
Today's press release [1]: "The Secretary for Security will move a motion according to the Rules of Procedure when the Legislative Council resumes."
The relevant official text of the above chinese link:
Rule of Procedure of the Legislative Council (LegCo) 64(2) and (3)[2]:
"(2) The Member or public officer in charge of a bill may, by an announcement made in Council at the beginning of proceedings for the resumption of the second reading debate on the bill, withdraw the bill if -
(a) the purpose of the resumption is for making such an announcement; and
(b) such purpose has been so stated in the notice of the resumption of debate given under Rule 54(5) (Second Reading).
(L.N. 74 of 2005)
(3) The Member or public officer in charge of a bill may, in making an announcement for the withdrawal of the bill under subrule (2), address the Council on matters relevant to the withdrawal but no debate may arise on such an address. (L.N. 74 of 2005)"
So no motion/debate/vote is needed. People are saying the Article 23/national security bill in 2003 was withdrawn by simple gazetting, without any motion or debate. This is the equivalent press back then [3].
This shows how little trust is left with the government (if any). Carrie Lam went from, "all works has stopped" to "the bill is dead" while refusing to follow proper process until today. Finally doing what she previously claimed to be unnecessary, after so many pain and damages.
What are the LegCo rules of procedure around this? Is there something we can read in English translation?
Whether or not a motion is required seems a major point.