Page 117 of 182
226
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
MR. WALTER M. SULKE (in English):—Mr. Chairman, on the point of the clarification of Mr. Lo King-man. The papers we were given at the Standing Committee where guidelines put together by the Department, nobody has ever shown us actual guidelines of the Central Government. As far as I know, such guidelines of that nature to be as specific as people say they are do not exist. That is point 1. Point 2 is, I think, I have been criticized for bringing up this motion after the Standing Committee made the decision three months ago. I would like to point out that it is perfectly within my right to do so and that the 'six months rule' incidentally only applies to this Council meeting not to the Standing Committee. Can I also point out to all of you that suddenly after many of our fellow Councillors had said how independent we are and how we are always going to do our own thing because we are financially autonomous and Central Government can't tell us something; suddenly, everybody starts toeing the line, assuming there is a line because I don't believe there is one. Now, I understand why Councillors are against this motion and I understand why the Department is against my motion, I understand why the Department would like the amended motion now passed because as Lo King-man pointed out that there will be difficulties. We have in fact accepted sponsorship after the Standing Committee decided that this was 'O.K.' from a company who bear the same name as the cigarette they sell. I wouldn't have said a word if it hadn't been a company with the same name of the cigarette they sell. I also wouldn't have said a word if I had not seen (a) the headlines in the newspapers and the South China Morning Post I quoted one was the only one; (b) we have received the letter from the tobacco industries which quite clearly stated that we are seen to support the tobacco industry and in this connection, my motion is not semantic, I quite deliberately stated industry and company. I would ask you all to vote against this amendment because this amendment is going to make us look like a laughing stock. We have been accused by the press, by the tobacco industry for supporting tobacco smoking and that is in fact what we are doing. So I ask you to vote against the amendment and for my motion.
DR. THE HONOURABLE ELSIE TU (in English):—Mr. Chairman, I have been asked by Mr. CHAN to clarify what the Government policy is. I did bring along the papers with me and there are two papers. One was given to us in May this year and the other in September. In May, it says that Government sees no objection to the tobacco industry advertising quite freely its non-tobacco products nor in sponsorship of sports or cultural events by tobacco companies if done in the name of their non-tobacco products. That is one paper. The other one when we discussed the matter in September, the Council paper, says that the Government has advised that the Council's current policy on corporate sponsorship follows similar lines as that for Government funded organization. So we are following Government lines. If I may just add, the major problem for the staff of the USD is when they are approached on sponsorship, they may be approached by a company which they do not know is selling tobacco products. For example, I personally didn't know that Cartier was selling tobacco products
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 117 of 182
227
until I read it in the press and there may be others doing the same. That would mean our staff would have to investigate every single company before they could even begin to consider a sponsorship because there may be many other companies that are selling cigarettes and we don't know about it. I think that has caused a problem but if the press and the tobacco companies are boasting that we support them, may I make it clear that none of us will support them.
MR. PAO PING-WING (in English): Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak on the amended motion. The amended motion seems to me is unclear and put Urban Council into a very difficult position because this amended motion is to limit the Council's decision in future regarding the sponsorship by the tobacco company or industry because the amended motion stated that this Council will not deviate from Government's overall policy guidelines because this amended motion has no timing constraint. So I worry if we pass this motion today, we lose our flexibility in future. So with this comment, I will oppose the amended motion.
CHAIRMAN (in English):—Anyone else who has not spoken and wishes to speak? We put it into a vote. Now we ask the Secretary to read out again the amended motion so, there is no doubt in your minds that you are voting for.
SECRETARY (in English):—Mr. Chairman, the amended motion is 'This Council will not deviate from Government's overall policy guidelines regarding tobacco advertising in the sponsorship of Urban Council events'.
The question on Mr. Peter C. K. CHAN'S motion was put.
The motion was carried with 11 votes for, 9 against and 4 abstention.
MR PETER C. K. CHAN (in English):—Mr. Chairman, that will be very interesting because if Mr. SULKE reads on the first part of rules 17 of Standing Order 21, he is right that he may have the right of reply but if you turn to the other page of Standing Orders on the first part, it goes the other way. The second line on the next page states that if the amendment is adopted which we had just by 11 to 9 then the right of reply in the debate on the amended motion passes to the mover of the amendment which is me. How interesting.
MR. WALTER M. SULKE (in English):—Mr. Chairman, having settled this and we are lucky that we have so many lawyers in our assembly. Can I please again make the point if we pass this motion, the amended motion, now, we are supporting the tobacco industry, I don't give a damn what hypocritical sentences had been used here by all sorts of people, the fact remains that tomorrow's headlines in the newspapers if we pass this amended motion will be "The Urban Council supports the tobacco industry'. Now if you want that, then by all means, you vote for it. I for one, want to dissociate myself completely from any kind of tobacco advertising, any kind of tobacco promotion and if the VCUC thinks that it is too difficult for the department to sort out who supports