Page 153 of 654
Page 153 of 654
156
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
freedom in this simple motion? Protection of artistic freedom should be made a major motion, not an amendment. I support the Democratic Party on protection of artistic freedom. It is the approach we should take, but it should not be discussed here, not just in relation to visual art.
We have so many disciplines of art. Why are we concentrating on visual art and not others? Do we need to raise an amendment to include protection of artistic freedom every time we touch on art at our public meetings? I don't want to see this happening. I would like another motion solely on protection of artistic freedom. I think it would be a fairer way to handle the matter. It would not make things so complicated. Mr. Chairman, I support the original motion and I look forward to a fresh motion on protection of artistic freedom. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. FRANCIS TANG CHI-HO (in Cantonese): Today’s motion raises popularisation of visual art. My fellow member of the Democratic Party Mr. LAI Hok-lim moved an amendment and put in safeguarding of artistic freedom as well. In addition to the reasons given by other colleagues, we can see very clearly that there will be need to use public place for the promotion of visual art to the community. Let us not talk about the development of art for the time being. Freedom to use public place lawfully and freedom of creation are basic human rights. No infringement can be tolerated. We therefore feel that there is need to amend the motion.
A Member said that there would be no need to put particular stress on the basic principle of artistic freedom. However, in our approaches to the Pillar of Shame and previous film festivals, there were signs of vetting to a certain extent. This is a worrying situation. I remember that a Member said we had absolute right to approve or reject applications for use of our venues when we discussed the application for a venue to display the Pillar of Shame. It was very simply put and it seemed a matter of course that we had that authority. However, if that decision is made on an artistic matter, the Council would be an intruder in occupying public place. Indeed, Members are authorised to approve or reject applications for use of venues, but we also have a greater responsibility to arrange provision of venues for lawful activities or for spreading of messages.
The same thing repeated itself again and again. It was like this in the incident of the Pillar of Shame. It was the same at a previous film festival. It was the same even further back on other occasions. Use of public place was to a certain extent manipulated or controlled. I give support to the amendment motion by the Democratic Party. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Joseph LAI CHI-KEONG (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, someone quoted two examples, namely the Pillar of Shame and a film festival. He said they had nothing to do with artistic freedom and they were rejected.
Page 153 of 654
Page 153 of 654
Page 153 of 654