214
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
He said (in English):—Mr. Chairman, I rise to move the motion standing in my name:-
'RESOLVED that the Designation of Libraries (Urban Council Area) (No. 5) Order 1988 be made under section 105K of the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance, Cap. 132,'
The purposes of the Order are to designate the premises on the Fourth and Fifth Floors of the Urban Council Fa Yuen Street Complex at Fa Yuen Street, Kowloon as a library and cancel the designation of the old Quarry Bay Public Library and to amend the schedule to the Designation of Libraries (Urban Council Area) Order 1986.
I beg to move.
DR. THE HONOURABLE ELSIE TU seconded the motion (in English):— Mr. Chairman, I second the motion.
The question was put.
The motion was carried unanimously.
4. MR. WALTER M. SULKE moved the following motion:—
"THAT this Council will not support the Tobacco industry or the use of tobacco by allowing sponsorship of Urban Council events by tobacco companies.'
He said (in English):—Mr. Chairman, I am moving the Motion standing in my name because I believe the policy of this Council regarding the acceptance of sponsorship by companies connected with the tobacco industry is ambivalent. Our present policy, as I understand it, states that we will not allow sponsorship of Urban Council events by a cigarette or tobacco brand, but that we will allow sponsorship from conglomerates who, among their various products, also manufacture or sell tobacco products under their name, the condition being that they are not allowed to mention their particular brands of tobacco or cigarettes in their advertising of the event they are sponsoring. Now this resolution was adopted some time ago because some of the large tobacco companies over the years have diversified into foods and other products, and have changed the names of their holding companies to such an extent that the holding company's name does not immediately connect with the name of their tobacco products, although the largest of these conglomerates still has the word tobacco in its title. But, unfortunately, since setting this policy, some companies have traded on the name they have in other products so that they also use their name for tobacco products. So now we have the invidious position of allowing a company to sponsor one of our most prestigious events whose name, although associated with quite a few other products, is also the name of a cigarette.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 111 of 182
215
Let me here say that it is one thing for a company who has been in the tobacco business long before we had any inkling just how bad smoking is for our health and who have since diversified so that in some cases such companies which were 100% tobacco are now only 25% tobacco, and it is quite another for a company who established their name in other industries to exploit their name for the purpose of selling cigarettes long after they, and we, have been told that smoking is hazardous to our health. And it is to these companies that we should send a very strong message. It won't hurt them over much to give up the tobacco business, which is really only a very small part of their total business, and perhaps our action here today might send the message that what they are doing is morally wrong and quite indefensible.
When this matter was discussed recently in the Standing Committee, some of us, including myself, warned that our stand was ambivalent and that it would be misunderstood by the public. There were headlines in the newspapers bearing this out: The SCMP for instance and I quote: 'Urban Council welcomes tobacco dollars!' But as far as I was concerned the tin lid was placed hard on the matter when I received a letter from the Tobacco Institute of Hong Kong Limited, signed by their Executive Director which, among other things, contained the following paragraph: 'Your Council's recent decision to continue with sponsorship of Arts and Cultural events by the tobacco industry is a step forward in the right direction'!! It couldn't very well be made much clearer just what the public perception of our policy is.
The spurious argument by the tobacco industry that the connection between smoking and various life-threatening diseases has not really been established is nowadays, I think, not even believed by smokers. Although the tobacco industry keeps on stating that heart disease and lung cancer strike also people who don't smoke, the medical evidence that smoking is a serious contributory factor in these diseases is overwhelming. The evidence also that smoking is a habit-forming drug is overwhelming. So I don't really think I have to convince members here that smoking is very bad for our health, and what is more, that what is nowadays known as passive smoking, i.e. the inhalation of smoke from someone smoking by a non-smoker is almost as hazardous to the non-smoker as the smoking is to the smoker. (The worst is of course the cigarette burning in an ashtray nearby because it hasn't been filtered through somebody else's lungs.)
Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I think it is time that this Council takes an absolutely straight stand and states that it will not accept sponsorship from any company who are in any way connected with tobacco.
Not only is this the policy of the other Municipal Council, it is morally the only policy we can follow.
I realize that this is going to cost this Council and thereby the ratepayer some money, but the answer to that is that the damage caused by smoking costs the tax and ratepayer a great deal more in human anguish and human pain, and in hospital costs.