Page 193 of 654
1 age 193 of 654
Page 193 of 654
194
HONG KONG PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
I find that some Members are unwilling to state their stand on protection of freedom of speech and expression. They hope to get past things by bringing in a matter-of-fact amendment. May I ask you to think twice. I support Mr. CHAN's motion. Thank you.
Mr. LI WAH-MING (in Cantonese): Please don't call us Honourable Members, Mr. Wu. This is not the Provisional Legislative Council. We simply address each other as Members.
I listened to Members carefully just now. I believe Mr. CHAN's original motion is a response to the amendment to Mr. Kwok Bit-chun's motion last time. Mr. Kwok was furious last time over the amendment to put in 'protection of freedom of art'. Out of respect for Mr. Kwok's opinion, Mr. CHAN Kwok-leung has today moved a new motion.
I am sure those of you new to the Council also understand the background of this motion. I think applications by the Democratic Party and Frontier for use of the Statue Square on 28, 29 and 30 June for different reunification activities triggered off heated debate within this Council. I hope the debate pinpointed the issue, not the people. There was very heated discussion indeed within the Council. When the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of the Patriotic Democratic Movement in China applied to display the Pillar of Shame, debates came to a head.
Actually, there was conflict over the Alliance's application to hold a June 4 Candlelight Rally. After much mediation and negotiation, venue was finally provided for the activity. However, display of the Pillar of Shame was left with no room for discussion. The application was rejected.
I want to tell newcomers to this Council that we are bringing out political reasons because we love the image of the Council. The image is to encourage freedom of art and refrain from vetting applications from a political angle. Let me just pick an example at hand. Say a drama society applies for a small venue at a civic centre (not the Cultural Centre or a large venue at the City Hall) to stage a play to ridicule the Chief Executive. When we see such an application, even if it does not clash with another booking and it is made through the proper channel, we refuse it because we do not want to make Mr. TUNG angry or damage the good relationship between Mr. TUNG and the Council. If this is the reason for the refusal, there is cause for worry. We do not want this because we will have vetted the application from a political point of view. The example is only hypothetical. It serves to explain how I feel about the whole things.
Some time ago, we rejected an application by the Frontiers and the Democratic Party. Some colleagues claimed that the activity did not match the atmosphere of joy over the reunification. They would not approve use of venue for something like a funeral. If we apply the same logic, the application was
Page 193 of 654