HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
41
Mr. CHAN asked who decided to invite overseas dancers to perform in Hong Kong and who decided on what to select for the collection at the Film Archive. I am sure all of you will agree that such work is not within the expertise of art administrators. However, let us not forget that there are six advisory panels under the Select Committee and they can give us advice. In fact the advisers are elites in their particular fields. I think Members will remember that when we passed the suggestion to set up advisory panels, we made it clear that they would be consulted before inviting overseas dancers to perform in Hong Kong or selecting films for the Films Archive. In other words, our policy of hiring art administrators is appropriate. We make use of their expertise to assist us in planning, organizing and promoting art activities. As for their inadequacies, we tried to make up in another way. So the example given by Mr. Chan just serves to reflect that the present arrangements of the Council's cultural management work are appropriate.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese):-If there are no further follow-up questions, we move on to the fourth agenda item on motions. I have to remind Members that there are four motions and it is now already near 5 pm. Another thing is, before Mr. Daniel WONG Kwok-tung reads out the motion, let me remind Members that the Whole Council had agreed at the SCWC meeting on 5 March 1996 that 'before the Privy Council reaches a decision on the case, it is inappropriate to openly discuss or comment on the deletion of the itinerant hawkers policy'. As the case in point is not yet concluded, I hope Members will be careful when asking questions about Mr. WONG's motion. Of course, I am not advising Members not to give their opinions. I just want to reiterate the policy for your special attention. Now, will Mr. WONG Kwok-tung read out the motion.
4. MOTIONS
(1) Mr. Daniel Wong Kwok-TUNG moved the following motion:
'Resolved that, for the purpose of resiting licenced itinerant hawkers, the Department should, in consultation with other government departments, explore the possibility of assigning more suitable streets for the erection of fixed pitches.'
He said (in Cantonese):—In 1993, which was about two years ago, on the strong recommendation of Official Members among us, we endorsed an unreasonable and, to me, unlawful policy. I refer to the policy to cancel the licences of itinerant hawkers on 31 March 1996 as a matter of principle. With luck, implementation of this policy was shelved pending the outcome of the Ng Enterprises appeal case now with the Privy Council. However, let me just ask why, having the courage to take the case to court, we do not have the courage
Page 41
Page 41 of 498
Page 41 of 498