HONG KONG PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
precisely that time. The attention that they give is proportional to the magnitude of the problem. If we do not ask, then they would not have anything to attend to. It seems that such a relationship is a deadlock, and there are many areas that necessitate review. I hope that we, as Councillors, will take the initiative to discuss issues with our advisors. We should not perceive the consulting of advisors as the sole right of the Department. We need to rely on the advisors' professional knowledge for obtaining more information to enable the Department to act on our opinions.
We hope that in the coming year, the Provisional Urban Council, apart from working in medical, health, environmental and recreational services, will make strenuous serious efforts in cultural affairs. This is in line with the hope Mr. Tung Chee-hwa expressed in his policy address about Hong Kong becoming a metropolis. Hong Kong is undoubtedly a modernised international city, but it seems that it is not an international metropolis yet. Perhaps you would ask what difference there is between a metropolis and a major city. Can a place be considered a metropolis merely because it boasts high-tech buildings, a booming economy, wealthy people, an improved education level, and material abundance? I believe not. Many places in Southeast Asia and major cities such as Singapore and Tokyo are very advanced and prosperous, but I think they cannot be ranked as metropolises, for their cultural climate is not ready.
Every year, the Provisional Urban Council injects vast resources into cultural activities. In the expenditures for 1998/1999, the operation costs of cultural services, libraries, museums, and the various select committees, will not be less than one billion dollars even after the deduction of revenues. The expenditures include those for activities for the development of cultural and artistic activities of various forms and natures. We could even spend staggering sums to invite internationally acclaimed artistic troupes to perform in Hong Kong, but such activities are only good while they last. These programmes are unable to take root in Hong Kong's deeper cultural strata or act as catalysts for the local cultural and artistic sectors to exercise their long-term cultural functions.
In its handling of cultural events, it seems that the Provisional Urban Council wishes to follow in Singapore's footsteps of financing cultural companies and buying foreign programmes. There have not been attempts to consider how a solid cultural foundation that has local characteristics can be built. Is it worthwhile for the Provisional Urban Council to use such vast quantities of cultural resources and stupendous investments on mechanical and stylised activities? Would it not be criticised for squandering the local taxpayers' money? This issue alone has already attracted comments from the mass media, the public and various sectors in society, not to mention the investment of huge funds in exchange for an impeccable reputation as an international metropolis.
Page 520 of 654
Page 520 of 654
Page 520 of 65
Page 520Page 521