PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
213
As everyone is aware, the inclusion of the wording of 'preservation of freedom of creation and expression' has not constituted any harm to Ms. Ada WONG's motion. It has not only constituted no harm but also served the exact purpose of pinpointing our determination to preserve the freedom of art.
Here, I would give my full support to Mr. Wu Chi-wai's amended motion. At the same time, I hope that being an open-minded person, Ms. Ada WONG will appreciate the amended motion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman (in Cantonese): We lack a quorum now. Would those Members who are outside the Chamber please return to their seats, or else the meeting will have to be adjourned.
Good, quorum is formed, Would Mr. PAO Ping-wing please speak?
Mr. Pao Ping-WING (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, I would first of all express my support for Ms. Ada Wong's original motion.
If we read the original and amended motions, we will find that the only difference lies in one sentence. As mentioned just now. I am not going to repeat it, lest the meeting would overrun.
As far as I see it, the sentence has already been covered by Ms. Ada Wong's original motion. Why did I say so? The reason is that under the Council's prevailing policies on culture and art, that is, the Museums Select Committee being responsible for art display and the Culture Select Committee being responsible for cultural promotion, preservation of freedom of creation and expression is already one of the principles. For those Members who sit on these two select committees, they should be aware that the select committees absolutely cannot object to any performance or display on the grounds that it runs contrary to the freedom of creation and expression.
Just now Mr. Joseph Lai cited a couple of examples, that is, the sculpture of the Aids Foundation and the Pillar of Shame. If Members are not forgetful, they may recall that when the select committees concerned discussed whether the two pieces of sculpture should be allowed to be displayed on the sites in question, to stifle the freedom of expression or otherwise was not the main consideration. We did not grant our approval not because the creativity of the item was unsatisfactory. When the various select committees discussed the issue, there were other considerations, such as the suitability of the venues and the desirability of displaying the items in these venues. I remind Members of this because I do not believe that Members would forget what we have discussed. This is the first point.
The second point is that even if the amended motion is carried, it itself is not exhaustive, because it has made no mention of ‘being in accordance with the laws of Hong Kong'. If I were to make further amendments. I could, after 'the fundamental principle of this policy' add one, two, three or even ten
Page 216 of 606
Page 216 of 606