HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
381
As a metropolis integrating both Chinese and Western culture, Hong Kong has its own uniqueness. With our efforts over the past three decades, our Chinese Orchestra, Dance Company and Repertory Theatre have developed their own styles. Other artists in society such as writers, painters and sculptors etc. have also developed their styles with a local flavour. These are the characteristics of the native Hong Kong culture which is in fact part of the culture of China. But unfortunately, some people put this local culture in confrontation with the traditional Chinese culture. Such opinions are in fact very damaging. For example recently in the dancing circle, there has been a controversy over Chinese dance. Some people raised a question on whether there was Chinese dance or not. In fact, it is alright to discuss the question from an academic point of view, and explore the origin, form and content of Chinese dance. However, it is a pity that some Councillors, even though they have consistently opposed the intervention of the freedom of creation, also argued strongly that there was no Chinese dance, but only folk dance. This reminds me of a Chinese idiom, 'A white horse is not a horse', meaning what is galloping is not a horse, maybe it is only a deer, or something that is packaged like a horse, but it is not a real horse.
Since Hong Kong's reversion to China is drawing near, it is not surprising that some people may exhibit different sentiments and feel resistant to certain situations. But I think that as such situations are already realities and there are only five months before the reversion, we should put aside the loads on our minds and accept the reality. I hope that after 1 July 1997 when our Council is no longer under the colonial rule, we will have a wider world for art and can provide better cultural activities to the public. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese):—Now I would make an analysis on Mr. CHAN Choi-hi's right of speech. I have been an Urban Councillor for some ten odd years, and as far as I can remember (I hope Councillors who have even longer service in the Council would correct me if I am wrong), there has never been such case as a Councillor having another Member to deliver a speech on his behalf in the Annual Conventional Debate and having that speech recorded in the record of proceedings. Also, as far as I can remember, the Standing Orders have neither any provisions for nor against the arrangement of having another Member to deliver a speech on one's behalf, so this falls in a grey area. Standing Order No. 21(2) states that a motion may be moved by one Councillor on behalf of another Member, but this applies to motions only. After a motion is moved, it will be seconded and then there will be follow-up discussions. In order that the discussions may go on smoothly, the arrangement of having another Member to move the motion on one's behalf should give no cause for criticism. However, while Standing Order No. 21(2) states that a motion may be moved by one Councillor on behalf of another Member, it has not provided for such arrangements of having another Member to deliver a speech on one's behalf in a meeting, particularly in the Annual Conventional Debate. The Council's legal adviser also shares my view.
Page 339 of 498
Page 339 of 498