Page 24 of 132
44
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
THE HON. MAN SAI-CHEONG (in English):—Mr. Chairman, as I am the person to move the motion, I would like to add that when I try to draft the motion I have consulted several Members of the Council and I think that in view of the fact that a lot of the speakers mentioned directly the content of the Policy Review of the Arts paper as issued, I certainly welcome this amendment to my motion because it will actually clarify rather than diminish anything from it.
CHAIRMAN (in English):—Yes, indeed most speakers already referred to the arts policy review, although the wording of the motion does not spell out fully the reference to this document.
The amendment was put.
The motion was carried unanimously being the substantive motion.
MR. PAUL YOUNG TZE-KONG (in English):—Mr. Chairman, may I congratulate the Government on its efforts to produce the Art Policy Review Report for consultation. The Government through its Municipal Councils especially the Urban Council with directly elected members since 1952, has been responsible for a substantial part of the present arts development in Hong Kong. Annex 2 of the Report clearly reinforced its recognition of this Council's effort.
Apart from the performing arts, the Urban Council has been successful in promoting the enlarging the visual and literary arts for the past 31 years. The success can also be attributed to the Urban Council policies and the valuable knowledge and experience of the many expert advisors this Council invites and appoints to advise its performing, visual and literary bodies every year. Obviously I think the Council will welcome advice from the future Arts Council. This Council recognizes and deeply appreciates the views of these advisors, the various generous private donors and the public. However, on its past performance and public recognition alone, the Urban Council is well qualified as party that the Government formulation of its Arts Policy and the Terms of Reference of the future Arts Council.
Government art policy towards its related bodies as this Council should somewhat parallel its successful 'non-interference' policy towards socially constructive business. To recognize the value of art and its artists in society, government and business should be more active in encouraging the myriad combination and possibility of creation in the art by making finance available for this purpose. How else can our society progress and prosper without Government's encouragement and cultivation of a balanced thinking in the public and it's young in their appreciation of the value of arts and its creativity? With the above words, I support the motion.
MR. VINCENT CHOW WING-SHING (in English):—Mr. Chairman, as many of the previous speakers have supported the motion by going into great details, I would try to attempt to support the motion with a few broad strokes. At
Page 24 of 132
45
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
present the Council for Performing Arts which would be replaced by the Arts Council together with the Urban and Regional Councils are the sources of public funding and support for the arts community. This pluralistic arrangement, seemingly redundant and cumbersome is actually a blessing in disguise. The three are sufficiently different from one another in outlook and aims so as to enable someone in the arts community to have not one but three opportunities to obtain support for his endeavour. The CFPA is concerned foremost with the nurturing of performing groups. The Urban Council wants to actually make presentations of local artists. The Regional Council is to cater for an audienceship and the set of venues quite different from the Urban Council. The three together provide a vibrant market place for arts groups to display their wares. Given an art and culture by their own nature fly from diversity and non-conformity, I contend the situation not to be preserved when and if the Arts Council is formed. And if the Arts Council is to be the substantive player in the three-part game, it must be given the way with law to do so. In some of the discussions of the Review Report, there has been allegations that the Urban Council and Regional Council have been left out of any future policy. I think it is actually wise for the Administration to be deliberately vague in casting a role for the two Councils. Because to prescribe a role for the Urban Council in this context is to ignore and neglect the fact that the Council is largely an elected body and as such it has representation for the people. I do not unconditionally subscribe to the view if the Administration should be tasked to set up objectives and policies with regard to arts and culture. If we do not want central planning in general for Hong Kong, let us not ask for central planning for the arts in particular. If one must ask the Government to make a central cultural policy it should only be asked to commit adequate funding to show a determination to raise the public consciousness in things of artistic and cultural and to make a general commitment to enrich people's lives. Beyond that I say let the Urban Council get on with its work. With that, I support the motion.
MR. CARLYE TSUI WAI-LING (in English):—Mr. Chairman, first of all I would like to thank the Councillors who are still in this Chamber. I am pleased to have an audience from my colleagues.
The development of the arts in Hong Kong over the past decade has been most impressive, and a credit to everybody concerned. It has shown what may be achieved by the mutual effort and enthusiasm of artists, arts promoters and government, both municipal and central.
The true potential of what was then widely seen as a cultural desert, first became apparent in a most exciting way during the first Hong Kong International Arts Festival in 1973. Hong Kong had never before seen such a vast array of quality artistic events and exhibitions presented together: a point of critical mass had been reached.
That potential had to be systematically developed, however, and in this the Urban Council has played a key role.
Page 24 of 132